Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Procurement Procedure

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will review the procurement procedure between industry and the forces in the light of answer 797 by the Electronic Engineering Association in their evidence to the Select Committee on Science and Technology.

The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. John Morris): No, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the Government's thinking on the specific question of third party intervention, referred to in the published evidence to the Select Committee?

Mr. Morris: I am aware of the reply given to a question when the Select Committee was investigating this matter, and perhaps in any case my hon. Friend should wait to see whether the Select Committee itself makes any recommendations.

Microbiological Research Establishment, Porton

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider arranging a number of open days in 1969 at the Microbiological Research Establishment, Porton.

Mr. John Morris: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: I thank my hon. Friend. Would it then be possible to bring this forward to 1968? May I say that I welcome this Answer, in so far as a full open day would help to remove part of the

mystery from biological warfare activities?

Mr. Morris: I am glad of my hon. Friend's words of welcome for my reply. I hope that the open day will be held in the autumn of 1968, or possibly early 1969.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what value he considers that open days can have in the examination of microbes at Porton?

Mr. Morris: What I am seeking to do —and I hope that this meets the wishes of the hon. Gentleman—is to balance national security and public interest. I have been to Porton myself recently and I have concluded that there is merit in my proposal, and I commend it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many experiments on animals have teen conducted on animals at the Porton Microbiological Station in 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967, respectively; and what were the animals.

Mr. John Morris: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister raise the veil a little? What kind of animals are experimented with in this place which has become a Belsen for the animals concerned? Is it not time that the Government had a thorough inquiry into this horror place, in which, thank goodness, the British public are getting more and more interested, and about which they are becoming more enlightened?

Mr. Morris: The scientists at Porton have been subjected to quite intemperate attacks recently. They are doing valuable work, and it is in the interests of the citizens of this country, who must be defended. I hope the open days which I announced a few minutes ago will relieve any public anxiety which may exist. As regards the kind of animals, they are mice, voles, guinea pigs, hamsters, monkeys and sheep.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree with those of us who have seen the way in which these animals are looked after, and the efforts


which are made to avoid any unnecessary suffering whatsoever, that for those who are looking after the animals there can be nothing but praise?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that those who have charge of these animals will appreciate the words of the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the Littlewood Report highly praises the standards at the Porton establishments.

Mr. Dalyell: While praising the enlightened decision which my hon. Friend announced earlier this afternoon, may I ask him if he can explain why it was that the B.B.C. in its recent film was not allowed to show television pictures of the animals, pictures it could easily get and in fact got from Sweden? Why was that decision made?

Mr. Morris: The explanation is quite simple, in that there are, I understand, legal restrictions, not confined to Porton, which apply generally to experiments of this kind, and there are restrictions under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.

Mr. William Hamilton: Could my hon. Friend consider the suggestion that Members of this House should have more facilities for seeing what is happening at Porton to allay—

Sir G. Nabarro: We have them.

Mr. Hamilton: We have not. Could my hon. Friend please consider how Members of Parliament who want to see exactly what is happening at Porton may do so without any restrictions on them?

Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order. The Minister just attempted to give an answer to a question about B.B.C. responsibilities in this matter. There are other matters about the B.B.C. we should like to question—how Bendit-Cohen got into this country. Why should one Member get an answer and not another?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair cannot be responsible for Ministers' answers.

Mr. Morris: As regards Members of the House, I hope that the statement which I made earlier about open days will be generally welcome, and I hope that Members of the House will be invited to go along to see the establishments at Porton when the open days come.

Mr. William Hamilton: Without any restrictions?

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the Minister give the House an unequivocal assurance that he will do nothing to inhibit bacteriological investigation at Porton so long as there are dangers in the world at large of a bacteriological attack on this country?

Mr. Morris: I think in one of my earlier answers I made it clear that one had to balance public security, on the one hand, with the interest of the public, on the other. I think that I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman on that.

Mr. Heffer: Referring to the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), has my hon. Friend got it right? Is he really saying that there is an Act of Parliament of 1876 that does not allow films to be shown?

Mr. Morris: No. This is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Speaking off the cuff, I gather there are certain restrictions about photographs of animals, to which I believe that the Act of 1876 applies. If my hon. Friends wish further details, I would ask them to direct their questions to the Home Secretary, who is the best person to answer them.

Following is the answer:



1964
1965
1966
1967


Mice
27,414
60,268
22,110
26,882


Guinea-pigs
4,587
1,027
368
720


Hamsters
Nil
1,106
790
825


Voles
Nil
Nil
67
60


Monkeys
Nil
Nil
10
63


Sheep
8
16
4
44

Note:

(a) If, for example, ten animals are used in one test this counts as ten experiments.
(b) The large increase in the number of mice used in 1965 was due to the beginning of a new programme of work on virus diseases concurrently with work on bacterial diseases.

Forces' Pay

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the pay increase due, after a two-year standstill, to Her Majesty's Forces on 1st April, 1968.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): I would


refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on 30th May.—[Vol. 765, c. 2163–71.]

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have a statutory obligation adequately to reward people serving in the Armed Forces and to remunerate them according to the rise in remuneration for comparable work outside and that 3·1 per cent. is still owed to our defence forces? Can he now say when this extra 3·1 per cent. will be paid, an increase for which they have waited more than two years?

Mr. Reynolds: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises, there is no statutory obligation of the type he mentioned. The Grigg system was in operation until forces' pay was referred to the Prices and Incomes Board. We have received the full report of the Board and put it into operation, and it provides for the maximum permissible increase under the Government's present incomes policy.

Mr. Maudling: Is it not a fact that people have been serving in the civil and Armed Services for two years now in the belief that they were working on the Grigg formula? Is not this, therefore, a breach of faith with them?

Mr. Reynolds: Considerable doubt was thrown on the Grigg formula by the report of the Prices and Incomes Board some two years ago, and the Government stated at the time that they were looking at this matter. It was announced in November that the whole question of forces' pay was being made a permanent reference to the Prices and Incomes Board. In future, the Board will report about this matter from time to time. I draw attention to the fact that the present report has been accepted in full by the Government and that we are still looking at it.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that if there was not a statutory obligation there was a clear-cut moral obligation?

Mr. Reynolds: Yes, a moral obligation which was broken in 1962. We have carried it out in full.

Malta (N.A.T.O. Units)

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Defence which of the units committed to the North Atlantic

Treaty Organisation as a result of announcements to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference on 10th May will be based in Malta.

Mr. Reynolds: The Canberra reconnaissance squadron will continue to be based in Malta for the time being.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about the number of ships coming back from the Far East which would be based in the Mediterranean. Can he now say whether they will be based at Gibraltar, Malta, or elsewhere?

Mr. Reynolds: They will not be based in the Mediterranean. As was explained in a recent Answer, some of them will be in the Mediterranean for certain periods, but they will be based primarily in the United Kingdom.

Nuclear Weapons (B.A.O.R.)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the present tactical nuclear weapons in the British Army of the Rhine will be replaced.

Mr. John Morris: We plan to replace our current capability in the 1970s.

Mr. Wall: With what? Will it be American tactical nuclear weapons, or are we planning to develop our own?

Mr. Morris: No decision has yet been reached, but we are watching with interest American developments in this field.

Mr. Allason: Is there not a much earlier requirement for tactical nuclear weapons? Is this not a matter of years but rather of months?

Mr. Morris: No. I would reject that completely. We are quite able to fulfil our N.A.T.O. commitments with what we have.

Amphibious Forces

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of British amphibious forces.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Maurice Foley): In the short term, that is to say until the withdrawals from Singapore, Malaysia and the Persian


Gulf are completed, we shall continue to deploy units of the amphibious forces East of Suez. For the period of 1968 they will also be earmarked for assignment to N.A.T.O. The longer term rôleof the forces in the N.A.T.O. setting remains under consideration as part of our force level studies.

Mr. Wall: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that any amphibious forces stationed in the Mediterranean take a long time to get to the Indian Ocean if the Canal remains shut?

Mr. Foley: Yes, Sir.

Recruitment

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what additional steps are being taken to stimulate recruitment to the Armed Forces.

Mr. Reynolds: We are using all the means at our disposal to explain the revised rôles of the three Services, and why we need large numbers of recruits, emphasising that the Services still offer an interesting, attractive and worthwhile career. I hope that the increase in Forces' pay will help.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he has just said is about as useless as it could be? Is he further aware that the recent figures on recruitment are extremely poor? Is he aware that this is brought about by constant changes of policy by this Government and until he can offer young men a tenable career he will not get the right men coming in?

Mr. Reynolds: If we can have the assistance of hon. Members in convincing the general public, careers masters, head masters, juvenile employment officers and others, that there is a worth-while career in the forces, as I believe there is, this will help the position. I am aware of the present position and I am not in any way satisfied with it.

Mr. Maudling: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the Government decision on pay is disastrous in this context? Is not the total failure to keep faith about keeping comparability with civilian employment bound to have the worst possible effect on recruitment?

Mr. Reynolds: I do not accept that it has a disastrous effect. The interim report

by the Prices and Incomes Board is only one of the matters which affect recruiting.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Would not one method of stimulating recruitment be to cease eliminating those regiments which have the best recruiting records?

Mr. Reynolds: If we are to stimulate recruitment—and we need 35,000 recruits every year—we have to make sure that they go into units which have a worthwhile rôle and not simply maintain units just because they have a long record.

Defence Expenditure (N.A.T.O.)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he made for 1967 and 1968 of defence expenditure which was attributable to United Kingdom membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and what steps he is taking to reduce this part of defence expenditure.

Mr. Reynolds: The only readily identifiable costs directly attributable to British membership of N.A.T.O. were estimated at £14·66 million in 1967–68 and £13·43 million in 1968–69. Since these represent the net British contribution towards common expenses and infrastructure projects, their level is not determined solely by Her Majesty's Government. I can nevertheless assure my hon. Friend that we play our part in ensuring that the level of this expenditure is kept under very strict control.

Mr. Roberts: Would the Minister not agree, however, that we should have the total of these figures available by April 1969, when we have to make a vital decision? Would he accept that on that date the Government can make a major contribution to Britain's economic salvation and a major contribution to world peace by telling N.A.T.O. that we are getting out?

Mr. Reynolds: I completely disagree with the second part of my hon. Friend's question.

Doctors (Recruitment and Fay)

Mr. Ramsden: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present position of the recruitment of doctors for the Services; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied that the pay of doctors in the Services offers a sufficient inducement to maintain sufficient numbers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Reynolds: The recruitment of doctors for the Services has been unsatisfactory. As regards pay I would refer the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 30th May.—[Vol. 765, c. 2163–71.]

Mr. Ramsden: Has not experience shown that the recruitment of doctors can be maintained only with the help of two factors, co-operation with the B.M.A. and the lead in Service doctors' rates over comparable civilian rates? As neither of these two factors were present before the review, and are certainly not present now, is not the situation very disquieting? What are the Government doing about it?

Mr. Reynolds: I would agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but one difficulty is that we shall not know until the autumn what the civilian doctors' rates are to be as a result of the Kindersley Report. Two years ago the B.M.A. decided not to cooperate with us, but I hope that it will change its mind in the near future.

Mr. Allason: Will the right hon. Gentleman dare to tell the House the number of doctors who have been recruited up to the last convenient date? Is he aware that many Service doctors would like to get out in view of the disgusting way in which they have been treated by this Government?

Mr. Reynolds: If the hon. Member wants the actual figures perhaps he will put down a Question. There is a shortage of 257 doctors as against establishment in the forces at present.

Beira Patrol

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many warships, and of what type, are to be earmarked for the Beira patrol this year; and from what base they are to be maintained.

Mr. Foley: As the House knows, the Beira naval patrol is maintained by two destroyers or frigates. Ships will be selected for service on the patrol as opera-

tional circumstances require. While engaged on the patrol, H.M. ships; rely on afloat support.

Mr. Digby: As no fewer than 46 ships were used over the last two years, would not some of them be better employed in the Mediterranean?

Mr. Foley: In so far as they have achieved the purpose, namely, that there is no oil going into Beira, we are quite satisfied.

Mr. Hooley: Will my hon. Friend consider inviting Commonwealth Governments to assist us in this patrol by making available vessels of their navies?

Mr. Foley: That is not a matter for me, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary to it.

Mr. Maudling: What instructions have these ships about the use of their armament in the course of activities?

Mr. Foley: The answer has been given already. They are required if necessary to use force to prevent tankers getting into Beira.

Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of the presence now of a Russian Fleet in the Mediterranean, he will reappoint a Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean.

Mr. Reynolds: No, Sir.

Mr. Digby: Is not the present naval force in the Mediterranean quite inadequate? Are not the Government relying to an undue extent on the Italian Navy?

Mr. Reynolds: The Western Fleet of the Royal Navy can be moved to the Mediterranean if required.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is there not an enormous American fleet in the Mediterranean? Why should we assume that the Mediterranean is a purely British-owned lake?

Mr. Reynolds: Most of the waters of the Mediterranean are international and there is a fleet of the American Navy in the Mediterranean.

N.A.T.O. (Additional Forces)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the reason for the revised North Atlantic Treaty Organisation strategy requiring 20,000 additional British troops and the amphibious force; what is the extra cost; and why this step has been taken in view of Her Majesty's Government's policy of securing the mutual reduction of forces in Europe.

Mr. Reynolds: The purpose of our additional contribution is to fill gaps which have existed for some time in N.A.T.O. force plans. In so doing we help to ensure that, if the process of mutual force reductions should commence, N.A.T.O. will start from a position more stably balanced than existed before. As the additional United Kingdom Forces now formally committeed already exist, the extra cost is very little indeed.

Mr. Allaun: If the Minister genuinely wants mutual reduction of forces, is it not an odd way of going about it to move in the opposite direction? If, as the Government have several times stated, Russia offers no threat in present circumstances, what on earth is the purpose of augmenting B.A.O.R. and N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Reynolds: The fact that the threat in Central Europe and in Europe as a whole has declined over the years is largely due to the effectiveness of N.A.T.O. troops in that area. As to mutual reductions, we brought home a brigade from Germany in the last few months.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultation he had with the other six members of the Western European Union before deciding on the increased British contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Reynolds: None, Sir.

Mr. Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members are deeply disturbed by the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in Brussels on 10th May that this new contribution would help our entering the Common market? Is this

trying to buy our way in by soldiers, sailors and armaments?

Mr. Reynolds: I am not responsible for the Common Market. I can only say that the statement my right hon. Friend made in Brussels and which I made in answer to a Question in the House on 10th May flows logically from the White Paper earlier this year, which announced that we should be concentrating our facilities and forces in Europe.

Sir C. Osborne: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the N.A.T.O. policy will go on for ever? What conditions must obtain in Europe before that policy can be changed?

Mr. Reynolds: The policy changes in response to circumstances all the time. It is to a large extent because of changes over the past year or two that the need has arisen for the additional forces which we have now assigned, but they remain stationed in this country.

Mr. Luard: Is it not a fact that any increase in the commitment of conventional forces to N.A.T.O. is likely to contribute to a reduction in the dependence of N.A.T.O. on nuclear forces? Should not this be welcome to every hon. Member, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun)?

Mr. Reynolds: That is exactly the change of concept of two or three years ago that I was thinking of when I made my answer to a supplementary question asked by an hon. Member opposite a few moments ago. N.A.T.O. is trying wherever possible to give a longer period of grace before having to resort to nuclear weapons. Often this means an emphasis in some parts of the N.A.T.O. area on increased conventional forces.

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the commitment of additional United Kingdom forces to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for the defence of Greece.

Mr. Reynolds: Our commitment is to the integrated military organisation of the Alliance and not specifically for the defence of a particular member nation.

Mr. Fraser: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great welcome has been


given by the Greek Foreign Minister to this, which he interprets as a N.A.T.O. commitment to the defence of Greece? Will my right hon. Friend recognise that Greece's membership of N.A.T.O. is totally alien to the concept of freedom contained in the Treaty and confirm that not one penny or drachma will be spent on the defence of the Greek military dictatorship?

Mr. Reynolds: Our obligations to Greece have not changed recently. They remain exactly the same as the obligations which we expect other members of the organisation to accept towards us.

Scottish Regiments

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what Scottish regiments will be affected by the reorganisation of Army units.

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will give an assurance that the Royal Scots Greys will not be amalgamated with another regiment or disbanded during the next three years;
(2) if he will give an assurance that the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders will not be amalgamated with another regiment or disbanded during the next three years.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what proposals Her Majesty's Government have for the future of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders; and if he will make a statement;
(2) what proposals Her Majesty's Government have for the future of the Royal Scots Greys; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) on 1st May, 1968.— [Vol. 763, c. 1105–6.]

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Why cannot the hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that no Scottish regiments will be affected? Will he please tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence

that he would be well advised to keep his hands off Scotland in this matter?

Mr. Boyden: The Statement on Defence, which will be fully debated in this House, will be ready in about a month. It will contain all the necessary information about Scottish and other regiments.

Mr. Monro: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the statement he has made is almost identical with that made by his right hon. Friend 13 months ago, but that his right hon. Friend a few weeks later scrapped the Cameronians? Is he aware that Scottish hon. Members have no confidence at all in the Government's attitude towards Scottish regiments? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]

Mr. Boyden: My hon. Friends said "Nonsense" to the second part of that supplementary question, and that is right. There is a list of what happened last year in the White Paper of last July.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great foreboding in Scotland about what the contents of the White Paper will be, and that any threat to abolish those great regiments would be strongly resisted by the country?

Mr. Boyden: The traditions of the British regiments, Scottish, Welsh, Irish and English, are taken into consideration in these decisions. Naturally it grieves the Ministry of Defence and popular opinion to take the unpopular steps which have to be taken, but they follow logically from the defence cuts.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are a great number of Scots who want this decision taken on one criterion, and one criterion only—whether there is any credible operational requirement for these regiments?

Mr. Boyden: Yes, Sir, and that is done. It is also done on a basis of fairness as between the different areas of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ramsden: Is the Minister aware that the Government have already announced changes bringing about a reduction of eight battalions in the infantry of the line? If they are bent on further reductions their reasons will require the most searching examination by


us on this side of the House. If the reasons are seen to exist and they choose a method of Buggins's turn, it will almost certainly turn out wrong.

Mr. Boyden: The right hon. Gentleman will have every opportunity of debating this in a month's time.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is is not a fact that young people in Scotland are becoming far too intelligent to join the Army because they do not know its purpose in the nuclear age?

Mr. Boyden: Scottish regiments are quite well recruited.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that there will be no cuts in the Gordon Highlanders and that they will not be disbanded, because they have the highest recruiting and re-engagement record in Scotland and are well worthy of retention?

Mr. Boyden: I shall not add to what I have already said.

Mr. Monro: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

B.A.O.R.

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of his proposals for increasing the size of the British Army of the Rhine.

Mr. Reynolds: We have no plans for increasing the peacetime size of B.A.O.R. As I said in the House on 10th May, we have earmarked for assignment to N.A.T.O. certain units and formations of the British Strategic Reserve. While continuing to be stationed in this country these forces will require additional training abroad and this is expected to cost about £400,000 a year.—[Vol. 764, c. 152–53.]

Dr. Kerr: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that many of us on this side of the House would feel much better if he could announce a reduction of £400,000 rather than an increase by that amount? Would he like to offer some reflections on what our attitude would be if the Soviet Union announced a corresponding increase in expenditure on Warsaw Pact forces?

Mr. Reynolds: The Soviet Union has announced quite big increases in the past few years. With reference to the question of the £400,000 reduction, my hon. Friend should give a certain amount of credit for the many tens of millions of pounds by which the defence budget has already been reduced over the past few years.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: How can the right hon. Gentleman expect to increase the size of the British Army if he talks a lot of nonsense about a worthwhile career without giving soldiers worth-while pay?

Mr. Reynolds: I do not expect to increase the size of the Army. I want to make sure that we get enough recruits for the future numbers that have already been announced.

Mr. Ramsden: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what anti-tank weapons are available to the infantry in the British Army of the Rhine.

Mr. Boyden: The 120 mm. Battalion Anti-Tank Gun; the 84 mm. Carl Gustav, and the Energa Grenade are standard equipment in all infantry units in B.A.O.R. Some units are also equipped with the Vigilant Anti-Tank Guided Weapon.

Mr. Ramsden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the publication of a recruiting poster featuring the Vigilant, and the reports, which those of my hon. Friends who have visited B.A.O.R. can confirm, that the Vigilant has been withdrawn from units as being too expensive to train with? Will he take this opportunity to clear up what seems to be a contradiction?

Mr. Boyden: I will look into that. The right hon. Gentleman does not, obviously, expect an answer at once.

Mr. Moyle: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now take steps to station a second brigade from the British Army of the Rhine in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Boyden: No, Sir.

Mr. Moyle: Would my hon. Friend not agree that a move of this sort would allow a brigade to remain an integral part of the Rhine Army and free us from the wrangle on support costs, which we


indulge in each year, and restore mobility to our defence arrangements? Will he not look at this matter again?

Mr. Boyden: No, because our N.A.T.O. obligations and the general effects on N.A.T.O. have been fully considered and rest as they are now.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is the Minister aware that over two years ago, in his Budget speech, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said that unless 100 per cent. offset agreements were made with Germany other brigades would be withdrawn? In view of the fact that no such conclusion has been arrived at, is it not time the promise was implemented?

Mr. Boyden: The offset arrangements with the Germans are reasonably satisfactory. I think we always hope for more, but the arrangements are as I have said.

Nerve Gases

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what stocks of nerve gases are currently held in Great Britain; and which are the gases so held.

Mr. John Morris: The only stocks of nerve gases currently held are small quantities necessary for the development and testing of defensive measures. It is not the practice to reveal which gases they are.

Dr. Kerr: Will my hon. Friend take into account that stocks of nerve gases manufactured under British patent are not only held in other countries but are used in them. Will he, therefore, take such steps as are open to him to restrict the use of those licences to conform with the use he has described as obtaining in this country?

Mr. Morris: I am not aware of any gases manufactured under British patent elsewhere. If my hon. Friend sends me details I shall willingly look at any case he has in mind.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that there is no danger to the public in the areas where these gases are stored or to workers in the establishments concerned?

Mr. Morris: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that the safety precautions are strict and entirely adequate.

Lightning Aircraft

Mr. Corfield: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many accidents there have been involving Lightning aircraft of the Royal Air Force.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Mer-lyn Rees): It would be contrary to long-established practice to publish detailed statistics of R.A.F. accidents. As regards the Lightning I can, however, say that its accident rate has been relatively low and compares well with those of both the Javelin and the Hunter.

Mr. Corfield: In view of that reply, is it not abundantly clear that certain Press reports, notably in The Guardian, have been grossly exaggerated and have shown a marked lack of responsibility in undermining the confidence of those serving in the R.A.F., their relations and friends, and denigrating a very successful product of the British aircraft industry?

Mr. Rees: I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I stated that statistics are not published. It is very difficult for those drawing conclusions from non-existent statistics to get them right.

Re-engagements

Sir Clive Bossom: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest re-engagement figures for all three Services; and what were the comparable figures for 1964.

Mr. Brian Harrison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the latest re-engagement figures for the Royal Navy; and how these compare with 1964;
(2) what are the latest re-engagement figures for the Army; and how these compare with 1964.

Mr. van Stranbenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest re-engagement figures; for the Royal Air Force; and how these compare with 1964.

Mr. Reynolds: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir Clive Bossom: Is it not a fact that this dramatic fall-off is due to lack of


confidence and, until the recent announcement, inadequate pay, and in the Army the further disbanding of units and also of the T.A., so that all three Services must have grave doubts today as to whether the Government really want men to re-engage?

Mr. Reynolds: I would honestly suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the figures. He will then find it difficult to talk about any fall-off.

Mr. Harrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that the rate of re-engagement is such that there will not be a shortage of technical personnel in the years ahead?

Mr. Reynolds: We are aware that some shortages of technical personnel are likely to arise in all three Services and we are doing our best to recruit people into those branches.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Are we really achieving re-engagement figures, which in 1963 were some 60 per cent. of the Royal Navy? Is not the reduction in re-engagement, which is also mentioned in the White Paper on pay, a direct reflection on the muddle and confusion, cancellation of weapons, and the rundown of our Armed Forces? Would not it be wiser, therefore, for the Government to get out and leave the defence of the country to an alternative Government?

Mr. Reynolds: The Questions generally, which are answered in the figures to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, refer to comparisons between 1968 and 1964. If hon. Members opposite look at them tomorrow they will see that they cannot make the type of criticism they are now making.

Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend tell us in money terms what are the earnings of a private in the British Army?

Mr. Reynolds: I think that it would be much better if a Question were put down, because the earnings vary quite a lot depending on the trade, the length of the period for which the individual engaged and a number of other factors. If my hon. Friend puts down a Question I shall be only too willing to give him the figures. I hope to place details of the revised rates of pay in the Library next week.

Mr. Maudling: The report of the Prices and Incomes Board refers to a serious situation which will arise on present trends in recruiting and re-engagement.

Mr. Reynolds: I am aware that some difficulties are likely to arise in certain specific areas in all three Services. The figures that I was asked for and am producing for the House do not back up the allegations which hon. Gentlemen opposite are making without having first looked at them.

Following are the figures:

The re-engagement figures for men covering the first quarter of 1968 and the first quarter of 1964 are as follows:—



First Quarter 1968
First Quarter 1964


Royal Navy and Royal Marines


To 9 years
—
4


14 years 
251
240


22 years
507
 439


Others
84
92


Army


To 6 years
7
10


9 years
954
1,163


15 years
907
601


22 years
104
147


Others
1,550
1,046


Royal Air Force


To less than 8 years
15
16


9 years or over (other than 22 years and over) 
571
81


Re-engagement for Pension
557
63


Re-engagement for a further period
12
7

A comparison of the re-engagement figures in 1967 with those of the previous three years will be found in my answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) on 7th February.—[Vol. 758, c. 143–4.]

Indian Ocean (Soviet Warships)

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what official reports he has received concerning the presence of Soviet naval units in the Indian Ocean since 1st January, 1968.

Mr. Foley: Soviet warships are known to have been present in the Indian Ocean over the past three months. They have visited various ports in the area. The hon. and gallant Member will not expect me to reveal sources of information.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will this new interest of the Soviet Union in the Indian Ocean have any effect on the Government's east of Suez policy, or will it be completely disregarded?

Mr. Foley: Clearly one cannot disregard the situation, but we must recognise that the Soviet Union, like any other maritime nation, enjoys the freedom of the high seas. This will not interfere with the proposed dates for withdrawal from the Far East and the Gulf.

Local Overseas Allowances

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete his review of local overseas; allowances.

Mr. Reynolds: I hope to complete the current review of local overseas allowances for those overseas areas that did not devalue in line with the United Kingdom last November by the end of February, 1969.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many men and women serving overseas feel that they have been at a disadvantage, particularly in B.A.O.R., since devaluation? Why does this process take so long?

Mr. Reynolds: I am aware of that point. This sort of review usually takes five years, but we are doing it in less than 12 months.

Mr. Wall: Is it not the case that the spending power of forces' pay has been cut by 9 to 10 per cent. by devaluation? When will the Government put that right?

Mr. Reynolds: The devaluation aspect was dealt with earlier this year. I am now dealing with overseas allowances, which are designed to ensure that our Service men overseas have living standards similar to those at home. One must take into account not only devaluation but changes in standards in the United Kingdom as well.

Phantom Aircraft

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has made for the utilisation of plastic armour panels to protect the crew and electronic installations in Phantom aircraft.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The use of plastic armour panels is one of several measures under study to improve the survivability of the Phantom.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Vietnam the Americans

have learned that the protection of crew and vital electronics can be of great value? Will he take a close look at the Bristol Aeroplane Company plastics armour, which is lightweight and seems very effective?

Mr. Rees: We are aware of the advantages of this type of armour and also, of course, of the experience in different parts of the world in different operational environments.

Advanced Combat Aircraft

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he proposes to place an order for a prototype or prototypes of an advanced combat aircraft to fill the gap left by the cancellation of the TSR2, the Anglo-French variable geometry and the F111 aircraft.

Mr. Corfield: asked the Secretary of State for Defence with which other European Governments Her Majesty's Government are currently consulting with a view to joint development of an advanced combat variable geometry aircraft; what is the current position; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Morris: We are taking part in initial discussions now being held with officials of the German, Dutch, Belgian, Italian and Canadian Ministries of Defence with the aim of establishing a basis for joint development and production of an advanced combat aircraft for the later 70's. These have not yet reached a stage which would enable me to add anything to the answer given to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 1st May, 1968.—[Vol. 763, c. 1094.]

Mr. Goodhew: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that so much work has been done on previous proposed aircraft that these prototypes could be produced for a reasonable amount of money? Will he bear in mind that the interest of these foreign Governments is in getting the aircraft early and that it is vital for our export orders that we should be quick off the mark?

Mr. Morris: I am aware that a great deal of work has been done in the past, certainly on operational requirements, but I would not agree that only a limited


amount of money is involved. A great amount of money is at stake. All these things, such as operational requirements and management of projects, have to be hammered out in detail.

Mr. Paget: Why do not we co-operate with the Americans in producing an aircraft which has some reasonable prospect of coming into existence?

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Whereas it may be desirable to have the co-operation of five other nations, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the more nations co-operating the slower the progress of the project? Would it not be wise in this instance to leave Britain as the prime contractor to carry on with the development and production of this aircraft and leave other nations to buy it from us and to cooperate with us?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman has posed only some of the difficulties. Where-ever a number of collaborators are involved, operational requirements differ and the needs and capacities of their industries vary. These and other matters have to be examined before a conclusion is reached. We are looking actively at all the prospects of getting the kind of equipment needed in the necessary time scale.

Mr. Corfield: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the British aircraft industry is the only one in Europe capable of manufacturing the whole range of airframes, air engines and components, that it has done a great deal of work on this aircraft and that therefore the collaboration of all these other countries, valuable as it may be, may well be bought at too dear a price?

Mr. Morris: I am aware of that point. With all the other factors, it is kept in mind when discussions take place. On the other hand, there is advantage in looking at the prospect of getting wider sales both here and abroad. Naturally, in these discussions, other countries want to put forward their own interests both in operational requirements and in their individual capabilities.

H.M.S. "Britannia"

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence in view of the need for setting an example in the reduc-

tion of public expenditure, what further proposals he has for reducing expenditure on H.M.S. "Britannia".

Mr. Foley: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 22nd January, 1968; I also refer to my statement during the debate on the Navy Estimates on 12th March.—[Vol. 757, c. 40–1.]

Mr. Hughes: If my hon. Friend cannot add anything, could he not at least subtract something from the £9,000 a week of the British taxpayers' money being spent unnecessarily? Is he aware that during its voyage in Scottish waters it cost the country £15,000 to take a Royal personage on something that was really a holiday? Will he not consider whether this ship should not be sold to America, where it would get a sum which could be used to build several advance factories?

Mr. Foley: As I said in the debate in March, the cost of Britannia is the minimum necessary to maintain her readiness for a wartime role as a hospital ship and to play her part on Royal occasions. Since then, the Royal Yacht as been used for a number of naval exercises and manoeuvres and we are examining further possibilities of utilising her crew when she is in port.

Sir A. V. Harvey: For the benefit of newer Members of this House, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that this vessel was ordered by the Attlee Government in the immediate post-war years? Why are some hon. Members opposite always complaining about it when statesmen like Marshal Tito, Colonel Nasser and the King of Norway have similar vessels? Why are they so petty and niggling? Why cannot they look at bigger things?

Mr. Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Service Pensions

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the percentage increase in the cost of living since the last increase in Service pensions.

Mr. Reynolds: About 9 per cent. since the effective date of the last pensions increase measure.

Mr. Allason: Bearing in mind the certainty of further rises in the near future, has not the time come for an increase in public service pensions this year rather than next?

Mr. Reynolds: This matter was fully debated on 9th May and I have nothing to add to what was said then by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when he pointed out that the necessary work was in hand for such a Bill but he could not give any commitment as to when it would be introduced.

Mr. Maudling: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the official spokesman in another place recently gave the impression that pensions had been increased by 7 per cent. for existing pensioners? Will he make it clear that there has been no increase?

Mr. Reynolds: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to forces' pensions becoming due by next week, of course there will be an average of 7 per cent. increase. But these are a different block of pensions from those referred to in the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Maudling: The Government spokesman in another place was referring to existing pensions of those already retired. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that they are not getting anything?

Mr. Reynolds: The 7 per cent. increase only applies to future pensions which come into payment from a particular date onwards.

T.A.V.R.III

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now announce the result of his study of the need for Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve, Category III.

Mr. Reynolds: I have nothing of substance to add at present to what my hon. Friend told the House on 15th May, 1968, but the hon. Gentleman will know from the Press that I saw the Duke of Norfolk yesterday and that discussions are continuing with the Council of Territorial and Auxiliary Volunteer Reserves Associations.—[Vol. 764, c. 1242–5.]

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Looking about the world, does the right hon. Gentleman

still maintain that it cannot happen here? If it does, does he think that the proposed reserves are sufficient to support the civil authority?

Mr. Reynolds: Generally speaking, the Territorial Army has never been used for strike breaking or in matters of that nature. In consultation with members of the Council of the T.A. and Reserves Associations, I am examining the requirement for a Volunteer Reserve to back up the Regular Army and for which there will be a long and continuing need for many thousands of men.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that former members of the Civil Defence Corps and the A.F.S. are being approached to join the T.A.V.R.III? Should not such recruitment be stopped until a decision about the future of the T.A.V.R.III has been made?

Mr. Reynolds: That may be happening in certain areas, and we are looking at the rôle of T. and A.V.R.III, but as has been announced, the home; defence rôle of that force has come to an end and the force is being disbanded.

Mr. Ramsden: Why could not the statements we read in the Press yesterday have been made to us during the recent debate when we asked precisely for such a statement?

Mr. Reynolds: The only statement I can think of was that when the discussions with the Council were going on, and it was the appropriate time at the end of such discussions to make such a statement.

Far East

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the defence discussions in the Far East are intended to lead to arrangements for British forces to be based in, or operated from, Australia.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for a British defence force stationed in Australia.

Mr. Reynolds: A full statement on the Conference in Kuala Lumpur will be made after my right hon. Friends have returned. We shall not base forces in


Australia after our withdrawal from the Far East, though this will not, of course, preclude our deploying forces based in Europe to Australia if we consider this necessary in particular circumstances and if the Australian Government agree.

Mr. Powell: What has happened to the negotiations with Australia for base facilities of which the Secretary of State told the House over two years ago?

Mr. Reynolds: That was over two years ago, and, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has complained from time to time, policy has changed slightly in that respect since then. Discussions have been going on at the Five-Power Conference, and the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs are returning to this country, and no doubt there will be a statement—early next week.

Mr. Goodhart: Are these discussions still continuing? What has been holding them up over the last two years?

Mr. Reynolds: There have been changes in view of our withdrawal from the Far East, as the hon. Gentleman opposite is aware.

Mr. Orme: How does the withdrawal from the Far East fit into the Press statement this morning that large reinforcements and exercises will be held in the Far East in 1970 and possibly periodically after that? How does this affect British defence commitments and the cost of those commitments in the Far East?

Mr. Reynolds: It was recently explained in the defence White Paper that we shall be withdrawing from bases in the Far East by 1971 but we have always maintained that we shall have a capability in Europe to carry out operations in other parts of the world if necessary.

Mine Warfare

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied that sufficient effort is being devoted to naval mining and counter-mining warfare; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Foley: Yes, Sir. We have a useful mine warfare capability; minelaying and mine countermeasures exercises are regularly carried out.

Mr. Powell: Does the Minister not agree that the disquieting defence White Paper this year contains no reference at all, under the heading of research and development, to the menace of the modern mine and the means of combating it?

Mr. Foley: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in fact there is constantly re-examination of measures to be taken. There is research and development analyses going on the whole time.

Mr. Speed: Is it proposed to equip all coastal minesweepers in commission with mine detection Sona?

Mr. Foley: It is not the usual practice to give this kind of detailed information.

Military Assistance (Civilian Community)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has completed his examination of the problems involved in military assistance for the civilian community as a normal service activity; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Boyden: The study has not yet been completed, although the consultations referred to in the last Defence White Paper (Cmnd. 3540) are proceeding satisfactorily. I hope to be able to make a statement before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Moyle: Can my hon. Friend say whether the discussions with the C.B.I. and T.U.C. have ended in any conclusion and will he make a statement in the near future?

Mr. Boyden: We do not expect to have any difficulty with the T.U.C. or the C.B.I.

Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this has already been enormously successful, particularly the work done by Scottish Command over the last few years and culminating in work done in repairing the gale damage done in January this year?

Mr. Boyden: I am grateful. Yes, discussions are going on and arrangements are being made in an attempt to make things at the receiving end simpler and more effective. From the Army's point of view no revolutionary process is involved.

Scotland (Deployment of Forces)

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, in view of the fact that Scotland is nearly one-third of the area of the United Kingdom and that Scotland provided over 10 per cent. of the recruits for the Armed Forces, he will now take steps to increase the 7 per cent. of the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom based on Scottish territory.

Mr. Reynolds: No, Sir, because the deployment of the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom must be governed primarily by defence needs and the fact that the)' use facilities which it would be uneconomic to reprovide.

Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that if Scotland's unsurpassed record of recruitment to the Services, particularly the technical branches, is to be maintained, it would be only right and proper to deploy a fairer proportion of those forces on Scottish territory?

Mr. Reynolds: I am aware of Scotland's record of recruitment to the Armed Forces and that of many other parts of the country. But we have to face the fact that facilities exist in all parts of the country, and it would be completely uneconomic to give up premises capable of further use simply to transfer units and facilities to Scotland. If the party opposite have their way, many places in Scotland will be closed down.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Minister take steps to countermand the order to disband the Gordon Highlanders now stationed in Aberdeen?

Mr. Reynolds: No.

Mr. Davidson: On a point of order.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot take two points of order at once. Mr. James Davidson, to raise a point of order.

Mr. Davidson: On a point of order. I should like to inform the Secretary of State for Defence that the impression he has given of the policy—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. Mr. Hector Hughes, to raise a point of order.

Mr. Hector Hughes: My point of order was that I asked a perfectly audible question of the Minister about the Gordon Highlanders stationed in Aberdeen, concerning which there is an order to disband, and the Minister made no attempt to answer it.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair either.

Persian Gulf (British Forces)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the reduction of British forces in the Persian Gulf will begin.

Mr. Reynolds: We are maintaining a good deal of flexibility in our planning; I cannot go beyond saying that the reduction will begin in time for our withdrawal to be completed by the end of 1971.

Mr. Goodhart: When does the Minister expect to be able to make a firm statement about the future of the Trucial Oman Scouts? Will he give an assurance to the House that the withdrawal of British forces from the Gulf will not begin before our local defence treaties have been renegotiated?

Mr. Reynolds: All these matters are being looked into now. That is why I cannot give a detailed answer at the present time.

Mr. Tapsell: Has any consideration been given to the question of the Gulf States supporting the costs of British troops in the Gulf?

Mr. Reynolds: This was explained in the defence debate. Only a small part of the cost of the military presence in the Gulf is the actual cost of the troops present there. Many millions of pounds have to be spent on various units and other facilities in the United Kingdom which are necessary to back up a military presence in the Gulf or any other part of the world.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Acton Main Line Station

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Minister of Transport what representations were made to his Department by the Transport


Users' Consultative Committee on the closure of Acton main line station at all times other than the rush hour; and what reply he has sent.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): No representations have been made to the Department by the Committee.

Mr. Baker: Is the Minister aware that as a result of the closure of Acton main line station many of my constituents have been put to considerable inconvenience in getting into Central London? If he does not believe this, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration, as one of my constituents, the truth of that?

Mr. Carmichael: I am aware that whenever there is a reduction in service some people are inconvenienced. The proper channel for their protests would be through the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. The Committee has received no complaints from residents in the area, so no recommendation has been made to the Central Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Thome Bypass (Bridge)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made on the plans for a new bridge over the canal at Thorne, and the building of the Thorne bypass.

Mr. Carmichael: Draft trunk road Orders for a bridge over the canal at Thorne were published in May, and are subject to an objection period of three months, which expires on 10th August. In the meantime, design work is proceeding. Representations and objections to the draft Scheme for the Thorne section of Ml8 are being considered. Other preparatory work is continuing so that work can start as soon as possible.

Mr. Jeger: Can my hon. Friend assure me that objections by local tradespeople whose businesses are likely to close as a result of the preliminary plans, if carried through, will be taken into account and that compensation will be paid?

Mr. Carmichael: All objections are looked at and carefully considered. Com-

pensation must be decided on whether people are directly affected by the actual plans of the road or whether the effect on them is merely incidental to the plans.

Al Footbridge (Darrington)

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport when it is now proposed to build the footbridge over the Al at Darrington.

Mr. Carmichael: Difficulties over land acquisition could only be resolved by compulsory powers. Erection of the footbridge is expected to be completed early in 1969.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Heat-treated Milk

Mr. Lomas: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the hardship caused to small shopkeepers, pensioners, holiday makers, single persons living on their own and other consumers by his refusal to impose a wholesale price for ultra heat-treated milk, he will now fix the price as he fixes the maximum retail price; and if he will make a statement.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I have no evidence that the present price arrangements give rise to hardship to shopkeepers or consumers.

Mr. Lomas: Does the Minister appreciate that many of these small shopkeepers do not stock this type of milk that these people want mainly because the Ministry fixes the maximum retail price but does nothing about the wholesale price, and small shopkeepers cannot negotiate with the giant monopolies? The Minister should do something about it. What action will he take?

Mr. Mackie: I agree that the profit margin on ultra heat-treated milk is less than on the normal grocery items, but the controlled retail price of milk is geared to large-scale household distribution. Shopkeepers are free to decide whether to keep this milk for the convenience of their customers. They can decide that for themselves.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is it not time that the Government reviewed the whole price fixing mechanism concerning the retail price of milk with a view to abolishing the Government's role in fixing the margins of profit?

Mr. Mackie: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Disabled persons (Car-parking Facilities)

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has held with local authorities with a view to ensuring that a recognised system for providing car-parking facilities for disabled persons is introduced throughout Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): In 1961 all Scottish local authorities were encouraged to issue identifying badges to severely disabled drivers and formally to exempt them from waiting restrictions. My right hon. Friend will shortly be consulting the local authority and road users' associations about the scope for improving present arrangements.

Earl of Dalkeith: Will the hon. Gentleman consult the Minister of Transport in England to study the schemes being carried out in parts of England as some of these could be of great benefit to disabled drivers in Scotland?

Dr. Mabon: We keep in very close touch with the Ministry in England. Although the scheme operating in England and Wales provides a standard badge for use in all areas, it does not give formal exemptions from all parking restrictions. So far in Scotland we have encouraged local authorities to give formal exemptions on a local basis.

Nurses (Pay)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the net weekly increase in pay of a student nurse in each year of training, a staff nurse and a nursing sister, respectively, following the implementation of the recommendation of the National

Board for Prices and Incomes' Report, assuming in each instance that the nurse is living in the hospital.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: As the Answer is rather long, I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hamilton: It had better be good.

The Answer is as follows:



Gross
Less Board and Loading
Net



s
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


Student Nurse in first year of training
5
9
2
4
3
5


Student Nurse in second year of training 
6
2
2
4
3
10


Student Nurse in third year of training
6
7
2
4
4
3


Staff Nurse
12
1
3
6
8
7


Ward Sister
16
2
4
3
11
11

The figures relate to the first stage only of the recommended increases in weekly pay after deduction of the appropriate charges for board and lodging taking account of the recommended changes. This award is retrospective to 1st October, 1967. The figures for the staff nurse and the ward sister are based on the means of the salary scales.

In addition the Board have recommended substantial further increases in nurses' pay including an increase in the allowances for psychiatric nursing from £50 to £100 and the introduction of an allowance for geriatric or chronic sick nursing, both to be effective from 1st April, 1968. Increases in the special duty allowances payable to nurses in training and the replacement of the present flat rate special duty allowances for working on Sundays and on night duty by a system of enhanced hourly rates recommended by the Board are under negotiation in the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council. Other increases recommended to come into effect on 1st January, 1969 are also under negotiation in the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council.

Scottish Housewives' Association (Representations)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received a letter of 17th May sent to him by the Scottish Housewives Association making representations about the small number of women appointed to the Economic Planning Committee of Scotland, the Scottish Development Consultative Council and the Scottish Tourist Board; what reply he has sent; what plans he has to rectify this sex inequality; and when those plans will be implemented.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I refer to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Members for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchinson).—[Vol. 766 c. 32.]

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that this is of great importance to a large section of the population of Scotland, particularly the women, and will he make some audible reply to my question?

Dr. Mabon: Certainly. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has written to my hon. and learned Friend today giving him a very encouraging reply to his Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Hotels (Registration)

Mr. Cordle: asked the President of the Board of Trade what further plans he has regarding the registration of hotels; and whether he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): I am not yet able to add to the information given in paragraphs 38 to 41 of the White Paper on Hotel Development Incentives presented to Parliament on 21st May.

Mr. Cordle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many hoteliers, while welcoming moves to maintain and improve standards, will be opposed to a rigid system of inspection and control? Can he say whether, in any registration of hotels, there will be grading as well as listing?

Mr. Mallalieu: That is a possibility. We are having consultations with all the interests concerned, and we shall make up our minds after that.

RAILWAYS (TRAIN FIRE, ST. ALBANS)

Mr. Goodhew: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the fire which occurred this morning in a train near St. Albans.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): Yes, Sir. At about 8.20 this morning a serious fire occurred in

the undergear of the rear two-car set of the eight-car diesel multiple-unit 07.40 Bedford to St. Pancras passenger train, when the train had passed Sandridge and was approaching St. Albans. The fire did not penetrate into the passenger compartments.
The train was rapidly brought to a halt to enable the passengers to be detrained. Unfortunately, a number of passengers broke windows and jumped from the coaches before the train came to a stand. I regret to inform the House that of these passengers one has died, one is seriously injured in St. Albans hospital, and 11 have been detained in hospital suffering from shock and cuts.
I am sure that the House will join with me in expressing sympathy to the bereaved and to the injured.
The cause of the fire is not yet known. Lieutenant-Colonel McNaughton, an Inspecting Officer of Railways, has visited the scene of the accident, and I will order an inquiry to be held.

Mr. Goodhew: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. May I express the hope that the whole House will join the right hon. Gentleman in his expression of sympathy for the bereaved and injured.
Is the Minister aware that there is growing concern among those who travel on this line, as this is the third fire in about the last three or four years, and there seems to be a growing number of casualties on each occasion, this one resulting in the first fatality?
In view of the great danger to passengers who leap from blazing carriages, and may well leap on to a line on which an express train is travelling, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what action has been taken as a result of the recommendation made after the last fire in 1966 that there should be communicating doors at the end of these diesel cars? Will he ensure that efforts are made to get passengers as witnesses at the inquiry, which did not seem to be done very enthusiastically at the last inquiry?

Mr. Marsh: I think that the first point which must be made clear, and which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept, is that I cannot comment on the cause of this fire since it is not yet known.


It may or may not be similar to that on a previous occasion.
The other point to be stressed is that these compartments were not ablaze. I am informed that at no time did the fire enter any of the passenger compartments. The injuries and the fatality were caused by persons leaping out of the train before it had come to a standstill. One can understand that. But I am told the fire had not moved into the passenger compartments. There seems to be some evidence that if people had not jumped out of the carriages the arrangements for them to leave the train would have been perfectly adequate. One can, of course, understand how people react on these occasions.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend look at the safety structure of these coaches? I believe that they carry up to 80 passengers, and have only four doors. In view of the number of accidents and the tendency of people to break windows, will my right hon. Friend consider that in particular?

Mr. Marsh: The inquiry will be a public one, and those responsible for it will be entitled to seek and take any evidence into account—but the trouble here, as I understand, seems to have been that smoke, not fire, went into the com-

partments through the ventilation system, and this, understandably, caused people to panic. If the train had stopped, they probably could have left it quite safely.

Mr. Webster: What steps have been taken to implement the recommendation of the previous inquiry that there should be communicating doors between coaches? Will the Minister undertake to ensure that civilian passenger witnesses are encouraged to come forward at the inquiry?

Mr. Marsh: On the first point, I understand that this has been, and is being, looked at carefully. The attendance of witnesses is entirely a matter for the inquiry. If persons have evidence to give to the inquiry, they will be both welcomed and encouraged to do so. It will be a public inquiry and the proceedings will be published.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: It is not proper to probe this accident until we have had the inquiry, but the Minister has rather moved over the question asked by my hon. Friend. Have the recommendations of the previous inquiry been put into operation, or not?

Mr. Marsh: A number of modifications to these units have been made as a result of the previous inquiry.

NIGERIA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Mr. Speaker: Before the debate opens, may I remind the House that during the last debate under Standing Order No. 9 I was able to call many speakers because speeches were brief.
I have a long list again today for a debate which is to last for exactly three hours and I again appeal for reasonably brief speeches from both right hon. and hon. Members.

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Michael Barnes: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your decision yesterday that this subject, namely, the effect of continuing the supply of arms from Britain to Nigeria now that the peace talks at Kampala have broken down, was an appropriate one for discussion under Standing Order No. 9.
I know that some people take the view that this debate taking place now could have the effect of upsetting the very delicate negotiations which are going on in London at the present time, but I do not share that view. I believe that if this debate is approached in the responsible way in which I am sure it will be, it can be very helpful in underlining for both sides the fact that the overwhelming priority now in this war is the earliest possible cease-fire.
I do not believe that it is the job of British politicians to take sides in this tragic dispute, but I believe that it is the job of British politicians to make sure that British policy is fair, just and honourable. I believe that this responsibility is especially heavy in this instance, where we are the former colonial Power and where it is now a fellow Commonwealth country which is involved.
One would have thought that when a civil war was threatening a great Commonwealth country it would have been clear that it was our duty to do nothing to encourage the use of force. I am sure that many people applauded the neutrality implicit in the statement made just a year ago in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, when he said:

We have, of course, made it very plain to the leaders of Nigeria, to all Nigerian leaders, that we have no intention whatsoever of intervening in the internal affairs of Nigeria."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; 13 June 1967; Vol. 283, c. 1376.]
The United States Government, in August of last year, issued the statement that
the United States decided, for its part, on the outbreak of the current hostilities in Nigeria, that it would not sell or otherwise supply arms and ammunition to the other side. To have done so would have risked deepening the conflict.
I am sure that many people in this country assumed that the British Government's attitude would be the same, but in that same month, August of last year, news began to leak out of the great charter airlift of arms which was taking place by night from Gatwick under conditions of extraordinary secrecy.
It is hard to discuss whether this policy should or should not be continued unless it is clear what the policy was originally designed to achieve, and it is difficult to be clear about that because different reasons for the policy have been given on different occasions. That does not help.
The first reason given for the policy was that because we were the traditional supplier of arms to the Federal Government of Nigeria we had to go on supplying arms so as to remain neutral. To have stopped would have been to take sides with Biafra. That statement was subsequently modified to read that the Federal Government was the only Government in Nigeria which all the world recognised. That was before the recognition of Biafra by Tanzania and because of this, so the argument ran, because we were the traditional supplier we had to go on.
It must be said against both these arguments—such things were said by many of my hon. Friends for months past— that we were in the past the traditional supplier of arms for the defence of all Nigeria and the protection of the people of all her regions, which is very different from what is happening today.
The third argument and the one on which the Government have placed the greatest emphasis is that it was necessary to continue the supply of arms to maintain the influence and good will which


we had in Lagos. There has been precious little evidence of this influence being put to the test. The time when it should have been, above all, was surely before the peace talks began at Kampala. If it had been put to the test then, perhaps those talks would not have been the shambles which they were.
The truth is, I think, that British policy has so far failed on this issue, and failed because the wrong decision was taken at the beginning. The Government were given, and accepted, bad advice. This was not a riot which would be put down in a couple of months but a civil war which has now lasted for nearly a year and will go on for many months unless countries like Britain stop supplying arms. It may be difficult and embarrassing for the Government to change their mind now, but, following the breakdown of the Kampala talks, the arguments for so doing are overwhelming.
The war is now entering a guerilla phase and if it is pursued to a military conclusion—who can doubt that the continuing supply of arms from this country is an encouragement to those "hawks", the numbers of whom I do not know, on the Federal side that a military solution is possible?—the civilian casualties are bound to be even heavier and bloodier than they have been so far.
I know that many people think that a unilateral decision by us to stop the supply of arms at this stage would make no difference, because other countries are supplying arms, but those who think that under-estimate the present climate of world opinion. World opinion on this issue is, I believe, overwhelmingly in favour of this senseless war, with all its suffering, being brought to the quickest possible end. A new situation was created by the recognition of Biafra by Tanzania, Zambia, the Ivory Coast and Gabon. Already, Czechoslovakia and Holland have stopped supplying arms, and if Britain were to stop I believe that any country which then continued would be in a very isolated position. This is the quick way to end this war—far quicker than trying now to get international agreement, which might take weeks and months to organise.
It can always be said that there are arguments in favour of policies which continue: the status quo, the traditional

policy. It is easy to let things continue as they have done and to reassure oneself that this is realistic or pragmatic, but every now and then in politics principles arise which politicians cannot afford to dodge, and we are faced here with such a principle. It cannot be right for this country to be organising peace talks in London with one hand and supplying arms with the other.
I therefore hope and pray that it may not be many more days before the British Government change their attitude on the supply of arms and recognise the contribution to peace which this decision could bring.

3.44 p.m.

Sir John Eden: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswiek (Mr. Barnes) not only for having sought and gained this debate, but also for the studied moderation of his language and for so courteously considering the interests of other hon. Members by keeping his speech short. I hope to follow him in both the latter respects.
For far too long, in my view and that of many hon. Members, there has been far too little knowledge in this country of what is going on in Nigeria, largely due to the very bad communications and the difficulty of getting any reliable information from the fighting areas. This has, naturally but regrettably, led to an ignorance of and even an indifference to the tragic events there.
The very magnitude of the slaughter left many in this country uncomprehending and lent sense of unreality to the reports coming from Nigeria. Far from being unreal, however, it is quite clear that the accounts of the atrocities are all too true. By whoever they have been committed, all will, I believe, deplore this tragic situation. They have been perpetrated on a massive scale and every hon. Member, including every Member of the Government, must be desperately anxious to see this ended as soon as possible.
I am certain that all of us share the ambition of Ministers to use whatever influence we have to bring an end to this war. Therefore, there would be little purpose now in examining the background of these events or looking too closely at the causes of the initial break-away


of Biafra. I do not want to try to apportion blame, but the facts which we must face are that a member nation of the Commonwealth is tearing itself apart and that men are perpetrating acts of a degree of inhumanity which has caused universal condemnation.
The debate is primarily concerned with the Government's decision to continue to supply certain arms and military equipment to the Federal forces. Like the hon. Member for Brentford and Chis-wick, I deplore the Government's decision to continue this policy. The situation has changed so substantially since the break-away as to justify an end to this policy.
I have studied carefully Ministerial statements, notably those in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in the short debate at the end of April. He said:
If it were two independent Commonwealth countries which were in conflict, then perhaps there might well be a case for not supplying arms to either side; but this was a conflict within an independent Commonwealth country. It was a recognised Government of a Commonwealth country which had depended on us for much of her military equipment … we should create a serious imbalance … if, because a Government was in a degree of civil war we were to deny it the weapons for carrying out its policy.
I understand the reasoning for the Government decision, but I do not think that it is right. To my mind, there is something immoral about the Government continuing to supply arms to a fellow Commonwealth Government when they are engaged in a civil conflict of this nature. This is more than just a civil war. Civil wars in terms of horror, if horror can be measured, are almost more appalling than total wars. This has now become a war leading possibly to the extermination of a race.
The Government offer some hope. The Minister, in his speech in another place, went on to say:
Nevertheless, there may be a case for cutting off British supplies if it could be demonstrated that this could bring peace closer."— [OFFICIAL REPORT,House of Lords, 29th April, 1968; Vol. 291, cc. 966, 967.]
I would argue that it could be demonstrated, and that the Government should be prepared now to attempt to do just this. In the totally changed situation there is no justification for the Govern-

ment to continue to supply limited arms, small arms, grenades and mortar equipment, any more than there is justification for other countries, such as Russia, to supply aircraft or France, or any other country, to supply military equipment to the Biafran forces.
The Government may feel that there would be a certain amount of futility in unilateral action, but I believe that they should endeavour to take it. They have a special responsibility in this. The parties are approaching the conference table, and the Government should now be withholding further support in the supply of military equipment. The Government, and all of us in the House, have a particular feeling towards the Federation. This was not only the child of our own creation, it was the very model of British colonial achievement, in which all hon. Members placed a great deal of confidence, and in which rested many of our hopes for the future of that part of the world. It is very tragic to have to witness now the dismemberment of this great enterprise which had been launched with such auspicious beginnings.
We must face the realities of the situation, which are that there is a major and terrible conflict taking place, that British military equipment is assisting in the continuance and the prosecution of this war, and that it is wrong, in my view, that the Government should be a party to this. I hope that they will change their policy.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) opened the debate so admirably that those following him are placed under an obligation to maintain his high level.
This is not the occasion on which to speak about the background of the conflict. We all hope that the damage is not yet so deep and so bitter as to destroy the hope of the recovery of the Federation. As Colonial Secretary in the early 1950s I played a part in the creation of the first Federation, and I have a special interest in it. I do not propose to discuss either the past or the future. It is the present which must concern us now.
In the B.B.C. programme "The World at One" today, Mr. Michael Leatman,


of the Sun, who had just returned from Biafra, spoke of the appalling danger of immediate famine. There are thousands of people in the territories surrounding Port Harcourt who are wandering around the countryside, without food or water, and there is the danger of a tragedy which will shock the conscience of the world unless we take action quickly.
I therefore hope that every effort will be made, while the representatives of Biafra and of the Federation are in London, to ensure that the International Red Cross and other agencies, such as Oxfam and War on Want, should have facilities made available to them immediately to supply food, medicines and relief. Otherwise, we shall have on our hands some responsibility for what may be one of the most appalling tragedies of our time.
The immediate objective must be to secure a cease-fire. The war will drift into a guerrilla war, which will become an endless war as people flee into the bush determined to fight for their lives. The Biafrans, as they call themselves, or the Ibcs, as we like to think of them, are confronted with a terrifying choice, either to die in battle or to surrender and, as they fear, to be massacred. We can argue whether there is justification for this belief, but there is no doubt that the Biafrans now believe that this is the choice before them. These are very gifted and courageous people who have made a big contribution to the development of Nigeria in years gone by, and it would be a very poor Nigeria without the gifts and talents of the Ibos to help them in the years ahead.
The first step to be taken, to allay their fear, is to achieve a cease-fire, and I hope that the necessity for this will be pressed in the discussions which are taking place. But the bitterness and the fears have gone so deep that when a cease-fire is achieved it will be imperative to have a peace-keeping force from outside Nigeria to keep the two sides apart during the negotiations which must take place before a final settlement is reached.
I would urge, first, a cease-fire, and, secondly, that consideration should be given to a Commonwealth or United Nations peace-keeping force. All we can do on that is to seek to influence the parties who are here in London and

the two Governments out there. If a cease-fire were achieved, without a peacekeeping force, there may be a gap during which no negotiations are taking place, and the bitterness has gone so deep that we might not be able to create the conditions in which talks for peace could take place.
I hope that the negotiations will succeed, but, if they do not, we ought to press strongly for a cease-fire without pre-conditions. So far, there have been offers of a cease-fire with conditions. But, quite frankly, these conditions will not now be acceptable to the Biafrans for the reason that I have given. They believe that that would mean surrender and, if they surrendered, they fear that they would be massacred. It is essential for us to recognise this and to ask the Federal Government to agree now to a cease-fire without pre-conditions and to a peace-keeping force being established at the crucial points in Nigeria, and then to wait for some time before beginning negotiations.
I have very many close friends who are Ibos. My wife and I know many of them, and it has been our privilege to entertain them when they were students here. We do not know where they are, or if they are alive. I implore my right hon. and hon. Friends to work for a cease-fire. If a cease-fire cannot be achieved, it would, in my view, be an intolerable position for the British Government to continue to supply arms which may be used in the massacre of people for whom I have deep affection.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It would appear that the Government do not intend to reply until the end of the debate. Surely it would be in the best interests of the cause being debated if we could have a statement from the Government earlier. It would put the House in full possession of the latest facts, and our debate would be much more to the point. Is there any way in which you could influence a right hon. Gentleman opposite to make an early intervention?

Mr. Speaker: The Government will have listened to the hon. Gentleman's advice. It is for the Government to decide when they want to intervene.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. John Cordle: The occasion of this debate is an enormously sad and distressing one for me. For years, I have had the closest personal ties with Nigeria. I have friends who are fighting on opposing sides in this savage conflict. I have had friends who have been killed as a result of it. Therefore, this debate is of more than a passing emotional interest to me.
My sympathy is engaged not by seeing the cause at many miles' distance. As a friend of Nigeria, I feel personally involved in what has happened and what is happening today. My small knowledge of Nigeria is not based on the handouts of public relations firms, or a reading of the intellectual weeklies. I returned from Nigeria only last Saturday morning. It was my second visit to that country this year. Last year, I was there four times and, the year before, three times. Perhaps I know as well as any outsider what can have happened to that formerly stable and happy country.
In the present situation, I do not feel that we achieve any useful function by using the sort of emotional language which disfigures reasoned analysis and debate, but I have been angered by the lack of balance which, to my mind, has distorted much of the discussion in the Press and on television. Sometimes it seems to have been due to a straightforward ignorance of what is happening and sometimes to a strangely misplaced sympathy for the seeming underdog in the conflict. But it can more often be traced to the machinations of the public relations firms which have been retained by Colonel Ojukwu at fantastic expense to repair, in terms of so-called world opinion, what his rebel armies have lost on the battlefields.
The immediate tactical purpose of the public relations exercise—which, incidentally, is the sort of exercise that hon. Members opposite are the first to denounce when they think that it is operated by a Right-wing regime—is so to stir up sympathy for the Ojukwu regime that the British Government and others will bow to public pressure and stop shipments of arms to the Federal Government. It seems to be reasonable to conclude that, if Colonel Ojukwu had not been so impressed by the success of the exercise, he

might not have withdrawn his representative from the Kampala peace talks.
Let us look at the question of arms shipments in a little more detail. It is said that we supply the Federal Government, our Commonwealth colleagues, with 15 per cent. of their total armaments. I believe that these weapons, in the main, are small arms and ammunition and not heavy armaments, Fills or napalm, contrary to what appeared in another of those mischievous leading articles on the matter in the Spectator, which drew completely false analogies with Vietnam.
These weapons have been purchased by the Federal Government of Nigeria quite simply to restore the unity and integrity of the country. They are not being used in a war between two States, but in what amounts to large-scale internal police action and an attempt to restore law and order and harmony.
To develop the point, it is important to stray slightly from the immediate question of arms and to consider what the dispute is about. We know that there have been atrocities, regrettably on both sides, and it would be neither useful nor instructive to swop atrocity stories. But it is worth pointing out that the slaughter of Hausas at the Imo River in 1966, though played down by the Federal Government for fear of retaliation against the Ibos, was reported on Dahomey Radio and led to the massacre on 1st October of that year.
For every well-publicised allegation against the Federal Government of genocide, I have a handful of well-authenticated stories of war crimes committed by Colonel Ojukwu's rebels. I was even a witness to the bombing of the civilian airport at Kaduna by a Biafran B26 last August. The sheaves of Press hand-outs detailing atrocities explain nothing. The fact is that the first blood which was spilt in the conflict was not Ibo or Biafran blood, but that of a world statesman, the late Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, a man I was proud to call a personal friend.
Sir Abubakar was assassinated along with two regional Premiers, one of whom was the spiritual leader of the Moslems, Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto, and others who, although they may have had their faults, surely would



not be thought by even the most bloodcurdling Biafran public relations man to have deserved assassination in the Ibo-inspired 1966 coup which overthrew the former civilian Government.
The one element which all these murdered leaders had in common was that they were not Ibos, and, clever though the Ibos must be acknowledged to be, they could not reasonably expect to commit such acts without some reaction, some retaliation, and some retribution. However, during the last 10 months or so, we should be clear that the policy of the Federal Government has not been one of retribution against the Ibos with British arms. That is what the Ojukwu rebels would have us believe, except that they would not concede the word "retribution".
I met General Gowon last week, and he convinced me that I was right to hold a number of firm views. The first is that the Federal Government had been forced to purchase arms overseas in order to wage a grim struggle for national survival. It has never been the main purpose of the Federal Government to win a total military victory, but rather to effect a genuine national reconciliation in the concept of their sovereign Nigeria.

Mr. R. T. Paget: When the hon. Gentleman has already made the point that both sides are massacring each other, does he not equally make the point that we should not join in that process and that the two ought to be kept apart rather than brought together?

Mr. Cordle: I will continue what I have to say and then it will be made a little clearer.
I am certain that General Gowon is prepared to continue to use force, if compelled to do so, to preserve the unity and integrity of Nigeria. He considers that to be his duty, so even if we stop the shipment of arms to Nigeria he will obtain arms just as he did at the outset and as he did when the Ojukwu forces were within striking distance of Lagos.
The fact that the Federal Government have not turned lightly to arms has been well borne in mind. We should encourage every effort by Mr. Arnold Smith, by Her Majesty's Government and others to end this beastly war, but it is clear that by banning the sale of arms to the Federal Government we will not stop the

war but, rather, will prolong it. The Federal Government will continue to purchase arms elsewhere whatever the difficulties. By impeding their attempts to restore order we will only encourage Ojukwu to continue to shun the conference table and a negotiated settlement and to continue his own purchase of arms, some of which have almost certainly been bought with the £10 million given him by the Federal Government to settle Ibo refugees in the East.
A case against continuing these small arms shipments to the legal and lawful Government seems to be based on the naive assumption that if General Gowon is denied munitions the Biafran rebels will lay down their arms. The case for maintaining shipments, which comprise only 15 per cent. of the total Federal Government supplies, is clear-cut.
First, we have the argument, put forward by the Foreign Secretary, that to stop the sale of arms would be taken as recognition of the Ojukwu régime and that we would forfeit what influence we still have in Lagos to strive for a peaceful settlement. After I saw General Gowon I said that we should give the strongest possible physical, moral and financial support and assistance to the Federal Government—that is the legal Government acknowledged by Britain—to bring to an immediate end a war which has already consumed countless lives, including many of my friends and, much less important, is estimated to have cost about £150 million.
I do not say this lightly. I believe that it provides the best road to peace, the greatest contribution we could make to the resolving of the conflict. I do not think that this would result in escalation. The promise of support to the legal Government could well be sufficient to end the war, despite the mistaken opinion in some quarters that Britain is a toothless bulldog.
To back down at this stage would be not only to concede to the rebels who prolong the war, but also to concede to the notion that hired public relations firms can order, control and dictate events in the international community.
I conclude by stating an offer made to me by General Gowon. He told me that he would welcome to Nigeria an all-party Parliamentary delegation, and, further, that he was prepared to invite at


his own expense editors of British newspapers to go to Nigeria and get an accurate picture of the situation. Those are not the words of a man who has doubts about the legality of his cause, and I therefore hope the Government will not yield to pressure and stop arms to the Federal legal military Government.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: Most hon. Members on both sides would deplore the speech that has just been made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle). Most of us who were prepared in the first instance to treat this debate in a non-partisan way will no longer be prepared to do so.
I should like to correct the hon. Member on a number of matters concerning what has happened in Nigeria. The first thing to be remembered is that what has been happening during the past year in that country is a continuation of something that has been going on for 150 years —that is to say, the conquest of the non-Muslim peoples in West and Central Africa by the militant Muslim movement which started in the early part of the 19th century by Othmar Van Fodio, who was barely arrested when the British came.
Successive British Governments tolerated the build-up of Muslim forces and did nothing to ensure that when we handed over the country to an independent Government that Government was a properly balanced one. The previous Government, and, in particular, Lord Boyd of Merton, Colonial Secretary at the time, bears a heavy responsibility for what has happened.
I have a copy of the minority Report of 1958, just before Nigeria's independence, by a former distinguished Member of this House, Mr. Henry Willink, and a former Deputy Governor of the Gold Coast, Sir Gordon Hadow. It consists largely of an exercise of justification as to why they should not hive off a middle belt from the Northern Region of Nigeria and not do anything to adjust the boundaries of the Northern Muslim-dominated region, notwithstanding the fact that nearly one-third of the peoples of Northern Nigeria were not Muslims and were apprehensive of the kind of treatment they would receive after our departure—

which the unfortunate Ibos are now receiving.
Of course, we could not safeguard against a country tearing up its Constitution in the way Nkrumah did in Ghana, but the least that could have been done was to ensure that the Federation would not be the lopsided thing it is. The population of Northern Nigeria far exceeds that of the other three regions combined, and in area it is enormous. It is like having a Federation of the United States consisting of Texas, Rhode Island, Vermont and New Hampshire.
The effect of permitting the Mid-West Region to be created was to alter the traditional regional boundaries and to weaken still further the peoples in the South, not only the Ibos but the Yorubas as well. Because of their proximity to Lagos they have been less able to do anything about it. As a result, we bear a heavy responsibility for what has happened in the succeeding years. Nobody living in West Africa at that time had any illusions that something of this kind would not happen sooner or later.
I think that I can understand the Government's reticence in this matter, and their reluctance hitherto to say very much. One knows how quickly the Governments of newly-emergent nations can change and how easy it is to give offence, and no country is more open to give offence than the ex-colonial Power. If I may tell a story against myself, I put down a Parliamentary Question last year mildly critical of the Ibos in Biafra, and it caused riots and trouble in Port Harcourt for which I was rightly taken to task by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), who had been out there and said that I did not realise the damage that this sort of thing could do.
We cannot claim, as a result of abstaining from saying anything, to have done anything to moderate this horrible war. It is no good saying we would lose such influence as we have with the Federal Government in relation to this war. We have no influence on it. Everybody knows that there have been the most horrible massacres and that it is the avowed intention of a good many people in the present Federal Government to obliterate the Biafrans. One can draw a fair analogy with what has been happening in the Sudan, where a genocidal war has been waged for a number of years. That is


the proper analogy, not the analogy with Vietnam which the hon. Member made.
If we now withdrew our support from the Federal Government we would undoubtedly cause offence, but we could be certain that we would be doing something to help the Biafrans to stay in existence long enough for proper negotiations to take place. It is true, of course, that this is not a war between fellow sovereign States. Things would be easier if it were. Even these days it is not often the intention of one sovereign State completely to wipe out another.
The great danger in this situation is that, because Biafra is not a sovereign State—or is not recognised by more than a few other peoples to be such a State— the rest of Nigeria will consider it quite reasonable not to negotiate at all, and perhaps to conclude that if they carry on in the present way for long enough they will destroy Biafra completely, so that there will be nobody with whom to conduct any negotiations.

Mr. James Johnson: Would my hon. Friend explain how 50,000 Ibos are at present in Lagos working peacefully and collaborating with the Government of the Federal Party?

Mr. Lee: I do not know whether that gives my hon. Friend much comfort. If he really believes that what has happened elsewhere gives one reason to believe that these people will go on being treated in the same way, this is being just about as naive as those who pointed out, before the Second World War, that some Jews were in Germany going about their business undisturbed while others were being put into concentration camps. I do not share my hon. Friend's optimism in this matter.
I appreciate that other people may step in and try to supply arms, but if we stop supplying arms we will be in a better position to apply diplomatic pressure on others to ensure that they follow our example, and perhaps we will be in a better position morally to give the kind of lead which certain members of the Commonwealth are looking to us to give as proper mediators.
"As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) said, it is no good trying to be a media-

tor, on the one hand, and a supplier of arms, on the other. I earnestly beg my right hon. Friend to give a more positive answer at the end of this debate than the answers we have been given so far. I am bound to tell him that if we do not receive a positive reply some of us may be minded to divide the House.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I rather regret having to speak following the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee), because I did not want to be led along the path of party differences in this matter. I have always believed that the House of Commons is at its best when discussing a topic of this sort, an issue which causes genuine concern to all hon. Members and about which there has been little or no party political strife in the House.
I share the hon. Gentleman's view of the speech of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle), who, I know, has close contacts with Nigeria. It might have been fairer had he pointed out that, among those contacts, he has close business interests in Lagos which are bound to make him something less than an impartial observer of the scene.
When we place the right hon. Gentleman's speech in that context we see that it is a valuable contribution from that point of view, but he was entirely wrong to attempt to suggest that the rest of us, whatever our political affiliations, are here simply because we have been brainwashed by public relations firms. That is certainly not the position.
We begin with one basic difficulty. It is that Her Majesty's Government went wrong initially in this dispute in accepting that what was a colonial administrative convenience in the creation of the Federation of Nigeria must necessarily be the right and permanent solution for the country after independence. My feeling is that this was never really accepted by the Nigerian politicians.
Indeed, I have with me a quotation from a speech made by the late Sir Abubakar Balewa, in 1947, in a Legislative Council debate in which he said:
Since the amalgamation of the Southern and Northern Provinces in 1914, Nigeria has existed as one country only on paper. It is still far from being united …".


It was against that background that perhaps Her Majesty's Government should have more closely borne in mind the threat of cessation and the difficulties, which first seriously emerged last year, between the regions.
I hope that Nigeria will be able to get back to the position when it will be able to operate within some sort of Federal structure, but the basis for operating such a structure must be the recognition that each region desires to participate in such a structure. It may be a much looser federation working within something like the East African Common Services Organisation. Perhaps that is the type of set-up that is required.
I do not accept any of the theories put forward about the one thing that is absolutely essential being the maintenance of the total, 100 per cent. integrity of Nigeria, regardless of the wishes of the people of Nigeria. The really critical period in the dispute, and the point at which Her Majesty's Government went slightly astray in their policy, was the two months from March to May, 1967, shortly after the military coup, when the Eastern Region was faced with the problem of 2 million refugees following the Ibo massacres. The Eastern Government, after a great deal of squabble and dispute with the Federal Government, decided to block the revenues which were due to the Federal Government. The Federal Government then declared a blockade on the Eastern Region, following which we had the declaration of independence by the State of Biafra.
Those were, therefore, the two critical months and at that time several hon. Members were concerned at the deteriorating relations between the Federal Government and the Eastern Region. Several of us appreciated that if this was allowed to go on, civil war was inevitable. I recall that at one stage in our discussions with Ministers about this issue there was a proposal that a small all-party delegation from this House might visit Enugu and Lagos and talk to both sides there in an effort to stave off such a breakdown in relations.
The House should know that we were dissuaded from going by Her Majesty's Government. As one of the hon. Members involved, I now regret that we

accepted this dissuasion. In our self-defence, it is fair to point out that we naturally assumed that the Government had superior knowledge of the situation. We accepted their view that the situation was delicate and that the matter was under constant review. We accepted their advice that it would be better if we did not go. I now believe that we were wrong and that the Government misjudged the situation during that critical two-month period.
I do not know the reasons for that misjudgment. When the history of this episode comes to be written, I believe that this will be one of the most important features of it. I do not know whether it was our different commercial interests in different parts of Nigeria. I hope that it was not. I do not know whether the advice which the Government were receiving from their officials in Enugu was being ignored by the office in London or was being overturned by the High Commission in Lagos. Whatever the reasons, that period before the war started, before public interest in this country was aroused, was the crucial time and is at the root of the difficulties from the point of view of Her Majesty's Government.
Inevitably, as we saw, civil war broke out, and the Government were wrong to start to increase shipments of arms to the Federal Government. It was based on a wrong appreciation of the situation in Nigeria at an earlier stage. They were wrong and, in a sense, they knew they were wrong because the operation was carried out in a hush-hush manner, with planes taking off in the dead of night— and the whole thing came to light only when they were found to be refuelling in Cyprus and elsewhere.
When representations were made by hon. Members individually and by groups of hon. Members to the Government, and even later, when Questions were asked, we did not receive satisfactory replies. In March I asked the then Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs:
The hon. Gentleman has used the phrase the supply of traditional arms'. Does 'traditional ' apply to the quantity of the arms as well as to their quality?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 215.]
We have never really had a straight answer to that question. I refuse to believe that all that has happened in the


past year is that the Government have continued to supply roughly the same scale, quantity and type of arms which they had been supplying since independence in 1960. I regret that we are not in the House of Commons in a position to demand more information about the supply of arms.
I accept that General Gowon did not intend that there should be massacres of the Ibo people, but there is ample evidence that the war got out of hand. One does not need to turn to exaggerated accounts by public relations firms about what has been, and is, going on in different parts of the country to learn about the situation. I prefer to consider, for example, an account by the Rev. David Craig, a Canadian missionary, following an incident in which he was involved:
A group of Efik people (the local inhabitants) brought two young men in civilian dress to the soldiers. The young lads looked like secondary school students. With the Northern soldiers was an Efik-speaking soldier. It was his duty to question prisoners in the Efik language. His job was to see if any spoke Efik with an Ibo accent. These two young lads did. The soldiers took aim and they were shot on the spot. I made my way back to the house.
After this incident he boarded a small coaster used for transport and he says:
On board, I met a number of army and naval officers. Thev were interested in my experience but seemed not to share my views about the shooting of prisoners. I referred to the Geneva Convention and one laughed and said, ' They gave us a copy before we left, but I ripped up mine—never read it.' Another had burned his.
That is an account not from a public relations firm, but from a credible missionary on the spot who has no interest in distorting the facts. The Government should have taken at an earlier stage some initiative to try to get peace talks going and, as a prerequisite, should have ceased to supply arms to Nigeria and perhaps have taken the initiative among other Governments in trying to get a wholesale ban on the supply of arms to Nigeria, since I accept the argument that a gesture on our part would not in itself have been wholly effective.
In the statement which the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary made to the House yesterday he seemed to imply that the Government were taking the opportunity to talk to Sir Louis Mbanefo because he happened to be in

London and that this was a useful time to talk to him. That is not, of course, the entire picture. Sir Louis was in London almost a year ago and he came and spoke to a group of Members in one of the Committee Rooms upstairs. He gave us an account of the situation as he saw it, from the Biafran side. He was here not as a politician or a military man, but as a distinguished Judge of the International Court. Some of us tried to arrange for him to be seen by Her Majesty's Ministers, if not officially, at the Commonwealth Office, at least privately and informally. No one would talk to him or see him and this attitude prevailed right up to yesterday.
I hope that the statement we had yesterday marks a change of policy and that following this change of policy the Government will listen to the demands made throughout the country for the cessation of the supply of arms. Among many people who have been to see me or have written to me, particularly Church of Scotland personnel, who were widespread in that region in the Church of Scotland missions, Doctor Clyne Shepherd, who has now returned to Biafra and is working there, wrote to me the other day. He said:
Something like one-third of the population are now displaced persons…. About 95 per cent. of the children we deal with are suffering from protein and vitamin deficiency conditions. Many people do not see solid food for days, and deaths are rising alarmingly.
I do not believe that it is up to individual Members of the House to try to put forward glib solutions to what is a really difficult problem; but we do ask, and this would surely be the role of the House in using our procedure under Standing Order 9, that, following this debate, the Government will take account of our representations and make a thorough change in the policy which they have followed so mistakenly over the last two years.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I would like to echo the last few words of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). In the war in Nigeria atrocities are being sufferel by both sides, but even more devastating is the famine which is following in the wake of the war and affecting hundreds


of thousands of men, women and children. The Sun this morning carried some photographs which most effectively brought home the results of this famine. These children may have black skins, but it hurts their parents as much as it would hurt us to see our children suffering in this way. The fighting in Nigeria may be thousands of miles away, but our Government have great influence in this sphere. And not only great influence. They are deeply involved, because so long as we are sending arms we are partly responsible for the bloodshed.
We are supplying 25 per cent. of the Federal Government's arms. This figure was given to me from an indisputable source. It is 25 per cent. and not 15 per cent., as has been said in some quarters. Even if it were only 1 per cent., it would be 1 per cent. too much for me. British Ferret vehicles are the main instrument of dscimation. The whole traffic in arms is, as it has always been, an encouragement to war.
But my main point today is not to press for a unilateral stopping of arms supplies, even though I personally believe that this would be the best way to influence the four other countries who are mainly involved. My main object is to press Her Majesty's Government to get a collective arms ban, to take the initiative in approaching the other Governments to stop exports of arms, whether from Government or private sources.
There are powerful reasons for taking this course. First, it would end the mass slaughter which these modern weapons bring about. Secondly, it would put Pritain in a position where she could be respected by both sides as a mediator— which is clearly impossible when she is arming the Federal Government. Thirdly, there are grounds for believing that if we took this lead the Russians, in particular, who are doing just the same as we are, would agree to stop their arms supplies, too, as Czechoslovakia and Holland have already done.
When I put a question on this to the Foreign Secretary at Question Time yesterday he replied that this might be done if it
would be agreeable to both sides".— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1968; Vol. 766, c. 37.]

But the right hon. Gentleman knew very well that the Federal side would be unwilling to agree to a suspension of the arms traffic which gives it an overwhelming advantage. In other words, it would have to be done by the main suppliers of arms, whether or not it was welcomed with enthusiasm by either of the contending parties.
A fortnight ago I led an all-party deputation of Members of Parliament to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, a man for whom I have great respect, a man of compassion and understanding with long experience in African matters. I wish that he could be here today, but we understand that a previous engagement made it impossible. His arguments on that occasion were so weak, so thin and so unconvincing that I left that interview with the view that he did not believe them himself and that he was rationalising to cover up for a policy decided earlier by the Government.
I do not like to say what I am about to allege. I am deeply suspicious that there is a most unworthy motive for our continuing to sell arms to the Federal Government and for our refusal to work for a collective ban. If I am wrong —and I only hope that I am—then I ask the Foreign Secretary immediately and categorically to deny that there is any truth in what I am saying. It is the suspicion that Her Majesty's Government believe that the Federal Government will win and that, as a result, they would be in a position to place big commercial orders in due course.
It is feared that if at any time Her Majesty's Government offended the Federal Government they might lose the chance of these orders—even if it is doing the wrong thing. It is also keeping in with the Federal Government because of British property interests in Nigeria. But humanity must come first, even before orders and property interests.
Oxfam would like it to be known that it is having great difficulty in getting desperately needed food supplies into Nigeria, especially into the area of fighting where starvation is rife. Only a little can be flown in, and at great cost. It urgently needs sea passage preferably through Port Harcourt. On humanitarian grounds alone, could not the British Government press for this free passage?
Lastly, I would make a comment on the British High Commissioner in Lagos. It would be unfair for a Member of Parliament to criticise a civil servant in this House, so I shall not do so. Instead, I shall lay the blame on the Foreign Secretary for allowing things to happen that should not have happened. I remind the House that, during the Crimean War, Lord Cardigan did not travel to the theatre of battle with his troops. He went on an extended cruise with his mistress, calling in at several ports on the Mediterranean on the way.
The British High Commissioner in Lagos has had two months' leave at this time, I understand, enjoying a holiday to which he is entitled. With his wife he spent a fortnight of his leave voyaging back to Nigeria by sea a few days ago. In my view, the Foreign Secretary should have told him in no uncertain manner to jump on the first plane to get back to his scene of duty.

Mr. John Lee: Is it not also true that the High Commissioner is married to a member of the Leventis family and very much tied up with the Federal Government?

Mr. Allaun: I do not want to enter into that, but I think that the Foreign Secretary has been rather lacking in this matter.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) has put forward important suggestions for a solution of the problem. A very broad and important committee, of which Lord Brockway is a prominent member, has put forward four points for a solution which I have not time to go into now. The main and first point is that of a cease-fire.
Many hon. Members feel that the present policy of our Government in this matter is wrong and is prolonging and increasing the bloodshed. The purpose of this debate is to press the Government to change their policy. We will listen carefully to the Foreign Secretary's speech to hear whether there has been any effect of the speeches made from both sides of the House, any effect from the movement outside the House— whether there has been an effect in the direction for which we have asked. If not, I should like to back my words with

my vote. That will largely depend on the reply by the Foreign Secretary.

Dr. John Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask your advice. A series of documents have been circulated in the last 15 minutes to, I believe, every hon. Member in the Chamber.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: No.

Dr. Dunwoody: To nearly every hon. Member. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) will have his copy coming along soon.
There are two documents putting forward the Federal Government's views on some aspects of the subject we are discussing. One is a statement on Red Cross relief supplies and the other is a copy of an address by the Commissioner for External Affairs in Lagos on Monday last.
Is it normal practice, during a debate on a subject like this, for this sort of material to be circulated in the Chamber? I ask this because my envelope was posted outside the House. It has an outside postmark and was addressed to another hon. Member whose name has been crossed out and mine has been written in in pencil. There is no Speaker's stamp or anything of that sort on the envelope. Is this normal practice? Would you inquire how this situation has arisen?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I think that the practice to which the hon. Member has drawn my attention is certainly unusual. I do not think that it is normal practice. I understand the practice and custom of the House is that anybody who wishes to pass communications to hon. Members is entitled to do so. Normally, they are delivered in the Lobby. There are occasions when communications addressed to hon. Members are marked "Urgent". In those cases, I understand that it is the custom for the messengers to try to find the hon. Member to whom the communication is addressed as a matter of urgency, the consideration for that being that it might be something which the hon. Member urgently desires.
I do not think that I have any power to stop the practice. If hon. Members


receive these communications they can deal with them as they please, or they may ignore them. The hon. Member has drawn attention to the matter, but I do not think that I have any power to interfere.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: Further to that point of order. Although these documents are marked "Urgent" they were addressed to other hon. Members. It is quite evident that someone has observed who has been present in the Chamber during this debate and subsequently altered the names, addressing the documents to those hon. Members who are in the Chamber. Therefore, this could not be urgent in the sense you meant, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask that this matter should be investigated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall certainly have the matter investigated. It seems that there is someone attempting to put into the hands of hon. Members in the Chamber documents which they consider urgent. Whether they are urgent or of any importance, I do not know. I have just been given one, but I have not had an opportunity of considering it. Every hon. Member is entitled to consider for himself whether they are urgent or relevant. Some hon. Members may wish to read them, but I have no power to deal with them.

Mr. Charles Paunell: Further to that point of order. We surely should not spend much time on this. It cannot be improper to receive documents from either side. A great many hon. Members have never been to Nigeria. They have been to the Library to find out about it and are relying on hon. Members with greater knowledge. This is an emergency debate of which notice was given only yesterday and we have been furnished with documents. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sorry. This is a point of order. What is at stake here is how the machinery of the Letter Board has been used, not the documents themselves. I have had a document handed to me from the board, but it has not my name on it. I wonder whether people are making too free use of the board, I do not think that we should complain about the subject matter in the documents.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Further to that point of order. Surely this is a more serious matter than has been suggested up to the moment. Obviously, these documents have come through the Members' Post Office. What right have I to the post of another hon. Member? Who has altered the name and readdressed the document to me?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall certainly have the matter investigated, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), as I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by pursuing the matter further at this stage.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: Not all of us on this side of the House stood yesterday to support the Motion for a debate today for fear that our words might be taken out of context. However, if the careful choice of phrase about a free and independent member of the Commonwealth can produce some pressure for common sense to prevail we shall be grateful to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes). I should have added a cease-fire to common sense.
As I do not often find myself in agreement on any subject with the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), I should like to put on record that as long ago as last August I had a passage of letters in the public Press with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) about the necessity of an embargo on arms from all countries, wherever they may be.
I remember that even before I knew a bit about Nigeria—and I have known Nigeria fairly well for 16 years and should declare an interest, being a director of a company with considerable trading interests there—I heard people argue that those in the North would never accept the Ibo people and that once independence came there would be civil war, particularly because of the dominance of one region.
The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) is a comparatively new Member, and does not remember the number of us on this side of the House who, when talking about the Federation before independence, argued that it would never


really succeed because of the dominance of the North and because there were only three regions. I suspect that if some of us had had our way not only would the civil war not have taken place, but the South Cameroons might still be in the Commonwealth.

Mr. John Lee: I gladly accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures.

Mr. Tilney: I only wish that we had had our way and that my hon. Friends had prevailed, particularly on the Treasury, which always said that Nigeria could not afford more than three regions. Now it is suffering because of what has happened to the Federation.
It is no use spending much time over the past, but the moment I heard about the coup in January, 1966, when a very old friend of mine, the Sardauna of Sokoto and another friend, Sir Abubakar Tafewa Balewa, were brutally murdered and, unfortunately, from the historical point of view, the Premier of the Eastern Region survived, I remember saying to my wife that I should hate to be an Ibo in the Gabon Gari, in Kano, that night. I was wrong, for it was not for another six months that they suffered massacre.
Soon after I went to Nigeria and met Dr. Dike, whom many of us know well, a very eminent Vice-Chancellor of the Ibadan University. He had just returned from America laden with dollars he had collected for Nigeria and the university. I remember talking to Francis Nwokede, a very eminent civil servant and another Ibo, but I could convince neither of them that Britain did not still want to divide and rule. I did my best to convince them that our major interest was unity and peace in Nigeria.
I went on to see Colonel Ojukwu. At that time, although he appeared almost like a monarch, he still preached the unity of his country. But the killings then— I am talking about the summer of 1966 —were only just beginning. We had an Ibo driver who was sent up with some spare parts from Kaduna to Kano and he never got further than Zaria, where he was bumped on the head. I do not know whether he survived hospital treatment, but within half a mile of where I was staying there were one or two murders that night.
A northern Minister told me, "They have taken the sword. Heaven knows

when it will be sheathed." It was a few months before the major massacres in the North. Whether 10,000, 20,000, or 30,000 were killed, it was a horror both for Nigeria and for the world. But despite all that provocation I believe that it was wrong for Ojukwu to secede. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) spoke of how he was invited by Ojukwu, as I was, to go out there a few weeks before secession took place. We were advised not only by the Commonwealth Office, but by many others, with the exception of an eminent shipowner, whose advice I wish that I had taken, not to go. Therefore, one advised one's hon. Friends as well. We shall never know whether, if we had gone, we should have been used as political propaganda, or whether it is just possible that our advice would have been accepted.
The result of the secession has been, in the words of President Houphouet-Boigny, of the Ivory Coast, that more people have been killed in 10 months of the Biafran war than during the past three years in Vietnam. Yet until a few weeks ago there was very little in the Press about it. How many protest marches have there been in this country?
To argue today that the Biafran Government are more popular in their country than a military Government who came to power after two coups, to debate the sanctity of 19th century frontiers, or the knowledge that if African States fragment into mini Balkans it would be to the detriment of all, or even to question Her Majesty's Government's policy of supplying arms to a recognised Commonwealth Government, or to get together with other nations to impose an embargo, is, I believe, almost shadow-boxing. The decision between anarchy and common sense will be taken within the next few days, long before more arms can be shipped and even longer before all arms shipments can be stopped.
For once, we have a twelfth-hour chance. Kampala looked to be the only chance, but now we have it again behind the scenes in London. Therefore, let us concentrate on the present and the future and do not let us haggle over who was right or wrong in the past.
The present position is that Biafra as a military presence is much enfeebled. She made one massive bid for real power


and was defeated at Ore, particularly because the Western Region then remained loyal to the Federation. But Biafra can be a strong danger to Nigerian prosperity for years. Countries that have helped her with arms, ammunition and money for their own selfish ends —and we know one or two—will do exactly the same for underground resistance movements, and they already visualise a kind of Biafran Vietcong. Therefore, unless we can get agreement prosperity may take a long time to return to Nigeria.
Anyway, whatever we do now over arms will not be binding on other countries. We may salve our consciences, but save very few lives. Yet it is a major British interest to stop this war for moral, cultural and materialistic reasons. Our interests converge for our mutual benefit and in the cause of peace.
The Ibos today face starvation. They have already faced massive unemployment. I only wish that their military prowess had been as good as their public relations. They are a hard-working imaginative race. They were already over-populated in the Eastern Region. They are now thrutched up in their own east-central State ripe for decimation by disease and the effects of war whatever the Federal Government now do. I say to them and to Colonel Ojukwu, "Surely, to be alive and productive in partnership is better than being independent and dead?". Paris was worth a mass to Henry of Navarre. Surely the survival of these people is worth a Federal or Confederal partnership to Colonel Ojukwu? I would much rather see help—medical supplies, nurses, and all means of rehabilitation—going to both sides rather than arms.
In all this, we in this country have a role because we are a considerable aid power. By civil war, Nigeria has thrown away so much of what she had been given in the past—and she got more per head than almost any other developing country. But let the rich Western nations forget that, and give more for rehabilitation. Let us take the lead in such a mission of mercy.
General Gowon, even though militarily victorious, can have no doubt about the fears of the Ibos and their feeling, as the

right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) pointed out, that, if they are to be massacred anyhow, they might as well go on fighting. General Gowon might well say, "Come and look at the Ibos and how they are treated in Lagos and at what we have offered to them in Enugu and elsewhere." But it is not truth that matters in the immediate future but what is thought to be the truth.
Enugu and Onitsha remain ghost towns. The Ibos have left their villages and "gone bush". Many will die there, but those that survive will carry hatred of their overlords from one generation to another, and this will bode ill for the ultimate unity of Nigeria. We who misgoverned Ireland, and, therefore, have had great difficulty over the centuries about the unity of these islands, should know.
Could not General Gowon carve his way to fame by saying, "We regard the Ibos as full Nigerian citizens. I have split the North so that there is no need to fear that colossus any more. So that both sides need not fear a build-up of arms I am prepared to accept a Commonwealth peace-keeping force on Nigerian soil, to be stationed roughly along the cease-fire line and to check for newly supplied arms at all likely points of entry."? Such a force would only consist of four battalions or so and would, therefore, be a threat to none. The rain forest may not be ideal as a training ground and compare ill with Sinai or Cyprus, but by not forcing Federal troops to garrison Ibo territory and by using a Commonwealth force, as an agent of Lagos I believe that General Gowon would find a special place in the history books.
But I doubt whether such a force could be temporary. If the Ibos are prepared now to lay down their arms, they must be sure of their survival and it will not be easy to make them surrender even with the prospect of a Commonwealth peacekeeping force there. We all know how many words and treaties have been disregarded by man in our lifetime. Many of us who have witnessed what Europeans have done to each other have no right to say that Africans are any worse or that they are any better either.
The office of Secretary-General of the Commonwealth—and I want to pay tribute to him for his hard work behind the scenes and for his imagination—was brought into being at the suggestion of


the African members of the Commonwealth. Having to organise such a peacekeeping force might consolidate that office if not increase its power. I believe that until an individually directly recruited force is brought into being, contingents from Commonwealth countries—and I hope that Britain would be one—would be accepted. General Gowon should be able, if need be, to refuse any particular national contingent.
But those countries supplying such contingents should not withdraw them except after very considerable notice. We do not want the same thing happening in Nigeria as happened with the United Nations force in the Congo. Ultimately, I hope that the national forces would give way to an integrated multi-racial, multicoloured corps d'élite, but that is for the future. The job for the Foreign Secretary now is to get a Commonwealth force on the ground. It would be paid for by the restoration of confidence and the re-expansion of trade, so let the maximum British pressure be used to that end.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) who made a moving speech. No one on the benches opposite knows so intimately the territory of Nigeria.
We have a very confused picture of the war situation. No one in Nigeria can be objective about it and no one appears to be. Many of us have old friends on both sides of the battle and all we can do is stand aside at a distance as calmly as we can and think what best can be done. We should be thinking not of what is best for Britain but of what is best for the Nigerian people.
It has been said that we should not drag in the past but I believe the conditions in Nigeria need some examination. This is a very complex situation. I have a daughter out there working for the Lagos Government. She has told me in intimate and graphic detail of some of the massacres of 1966 and they are horrifying. There is no doubt that the Ibos have had a terrible time and it is obvious that there was political inspiration behind all this slaughter. But, of course, when this sort of thing occurs, whether it be in Chicago or in Paris or in Nigeria, hooligans and villains move in with looting of property and the butchering of people.
The Ibos are not a usual type of African. They have in many ways the attributes of the Jews and the Lebanese. Their chief export is men and they have gone all over Nigeria. They have not been popular in the past. It is not just a simple issue of the attitude of the Moslems of the North. There is more to it than that.
I was in Nigeria a year or two ago trying to organise African workers in municipal Government. We could form trade unions in the south with the Ibos and other tribes. They could organise on British lines and have a T.U.C. in Lagos. But it was a different matter in the North. There, the Ibos were ostracised as union organisers and, among the Hausas—the elite—there were the house and staff associations. The Ibos were not living quite in ghettoes but they were physically ostracised and lived without the city walls, in the Sabon Gari.
So the history of the North and the South in Nigeria is complex. This was not so in the mid-West—or in Lagos and Ibadan. This is why I intervened earlier to ask why in the mid-West and in Lagos there are tens of thousands of Ibos mixing with Westerners and Northerners and working together with them trying to build up one Nigeria to a better set-up than they had previously.
The Lagos Government are a fellow Government in the Commonwealth. They came to power by military coup. But we recognise such Governments constitutionally. No one denies that the Ghana Government are a fellow Government of the Commonwealth and entitled to have help in any difficulty, internally or externally.
The Government in Lagos—let us make no bones about this—are facing a secessionist movement by any judgment. I do not think Colonel Ojukwu should have seceded. I will be quite open and honest about this. The Ibos belong to Nigeria, I believe in one Nigeria, and I think that he made a mistake in seceding in this way.
I have listened both in this House and outside to spokesmen for both sides. Outside the House we have had some first-class public relations officers for the Ibos. They have mounted a massive campaign; they have been efficient; and the image in the minds of many of my colleagues both inside and outside the


House is of a Biafra which is facing total extermination. That image has been built up by speeches, efficient speeches, inspired speeches, impassioned speeches by leaders in Eastern Nigeria, Iboland. They have had an effective machine outside. But we have listened in this Chamber today to some very efficient exercises on the other side too—by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle). I do not blame him for doing this. The balance has been slightly adjusted.
I have listened to both sides, to the former Chief Justice Mbanefo, and to the former Federal High Commissioner, Chief Toye Coker, who was with us at the beginning of independence. I certainly believe that General Gowon and Lagos are willing to give concessions to keep Iboland, or Biafra, call it what we may—indeed, the East Central Province—within the Mother State of Nigeria; and I think we ought to attempt to do this and not take sides, as apparently some people do, quite rightly, in this terribly sad tragedy for literally millions of people in Nigeria.
I want to be as calm about this as I possibly can, and I am faced with the conclusion that Biafra will make no concessions at all. Let us look at it as clearly as we can, for the former Chief Justice Mbanefo left the Kampala talks. I would be the first in this Chamber to attack Colonel Hassan or any other fanatical Moslem leader out of Kano who goes into the mid-West and loses control of his battalion or company so that they commit atrocities. This has happened, I know, in the field. There are battalion and company commanders who have lost effective control of their men. There can be no doubt about it whatever. They are not conscripts in the Nigerian Army, but are volunteers, and, perhaps, this sometimes makes it even worse.
I put this to the former High Commissioner, Chief Coker. He says, "They are not all of this calibre, and General Gowon has not lost liaison and not lost touch with his commanders in the field". He will go on to say, indeed, that many of the Nigerian Army are genuine Nigerian men—that is, they are men who do not take sides with the Hausa Moslems against the Christian leaders of the south, but are Tivs and Middle

Belt men, who are attempting to build up one Nigeria; one State. But there is no doubt whatever that there is a sad lack of discipline, and there are things happening in the field which in other theatres of war would not be tolerated for a moment, at least where we the British had any influence at all. The Ibo people have experienced bloody behaviour on the part of the Hausa Muslims. We are faced with the position that Colonel Ojukwu, the leader of the Ibos, is convinced that his people have no hope of survival and that they must fight to the bitter end. They are now fleeing into the bush.
I am a little perplexed at the position taken at the moment by Zambia and by Tanzania in their recognition of Biafra. We have not recognised Biafra. Why are they doing this? Why are they supporting Ojukwu? It is very significant for us in this Chamber this afternoon. Formerly, no African leader would ever dare openly to support any secessionist movement, any claim to a territory which was left to the independent nationalist State at the time when the imperial Power left: because once that starts and secession is allowed and accepted, and boundaries are changed; the whole of Africa is on the move, on the slide. Indeed, Kenneth Kaunda, whom many of us claim as a personal friend, two years ago was making speeches saying, "No one shall secede in Zambia, and if secession starts I will put it down". Now we are in the position that African leaders, whom we all support, are now accepting secession by Eastern Nigeria; by the Ibos of Biafra. Why is this? I suggest that the reason is that they have now come to accept, as Africans who know their own continent, that there are certain problems one cannot solve by war. If millions of Ibos will take to the bush and fight on and on to save themselves from extermination, African leaders like Kenneth Kaunda deem the lesser of two evils to be the political recognition of those people. Indeed, they would have us in this Parliament also move towards that position.
I have not moved that distance yet, and I am hoping that the talks now in London will be fruitful. We must do our best to get the two sides together, whatever Colonel Ojukwo may say in his beleaguered territory to lift up the morale


of his own people. The position is not quite so simple as is sometimes stated, with a head-on collision likely between 10 million or 12 million Ibos facing the north and the west.
In the same way as we are lobbied by the Ibo peoples about their difficulties and the dreadful massacres by the Federal forces, in the same way one is lobbied by minorities in the twelfth State, the Rivers State. These are the peoples of Calabar, Ijawes, Efiks and others right down in the south near Port Harcourt, who are now claiming that they wish to be out of Biafra if Biafra becomes a sovereign State in the future. So it is a very difficult and complex position indeed. I have much sympathy with these people who lobby me against Eastern Nigeria, in the same way as I have sympathy with Ibo people who lobby me against the Lagos Government, and protest against the bloody behaviour of the Hausa Moslem soldiers in the field. We are all aghast at the continuing slaughter which is going on of tens of thousands. I am even more aghast at the fact that there are millions who are; starving, suffering malnutrition of the worst kind, leading to the disease of kwashikor as they live on starchy foods in the bush in Eastern Nigeria. It is a terrible future to contemplate.
No white man can tell an African what the solution must be. All I hope is that my Government will do their very best to bring together the two men now in London negotiating, and I hope that in some way we can bridge the gap. I firmly believe there should be a moratorium on arms. Some of us have asked for this for some time—that we should have a moratorium while the peace talks are going on. If our Government cannot say they will stop it completely, I think they should at least allow the two leaders, Mbanefo and Enahoro, to have a climate of opinion here during a moratorium to allow them at least to think more calmly, and to come together for the future of Nigeria.

5.20 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) for having set such a sober tone to the debate and having kept his speech short so that others may take part.
I cannot claim the special knowledge of many hon. Members who have spoken. The last time I spoke on Nigeria was in connection with Enahoro and deciding what should happen about his legal position. On that occasion I took a line not altogether in complete tune with that of my party. It seems that just as in that case there was a strong matter of principle involved, so today there is a very important principle that has had all too little attention paid to it in the course of the debate.
I believe that one of the keystones of constitutional government is that in our relations overseas we deal with the de facto and preferably the de jure Governments of the different countries. We recognise that the de jure and the de facto Government is the accredited Government which we must regard as representing the sovereignty of the country concerned.
If we were to follow completely the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) without qualification we would be in grave danger of compromising that principle. So long as the Federation can claim to be the Government of Nigeria we have to be very careful before we start treating it as though it were not. This to me is the cardinal constitutional issue that is raised by the debate.
No one dislikes war more than I do. I have seen quite enough of it. I have-enough personal experience to make me realise that some of those who assume that conventional war is paradise compared with what nuclear war might be perhaps do not always recognise the ghastly wounds that can be caused by conventional weapons. Never has this been more clearly displayed than in what has been happening in Nigeria over the last year.
We have also seen in the last year that sometimes it is not the colour of a man's skin so much as his tribal affiliation that can divide mankind. I am not sufficiently expert to know the rights and wrongs as between the Ibos and the other inhabitants of Nigeria. I have Nigerian friends living in London. Concerning the one that I know best, the most aggressive act that I have ever seen him perpetrate is to put an offertory plate in front of a retired Indian Army colonel. Of all the


African people, from none did we expect a more peaceful development, when they got self-government, than the Nigerians. But I recollect that speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), whose knowledge of the conditions is considerable. I endorse the warnings which he gave of the difficulties which might arise following independence. Once we accept Nigeria as self-governing and that the Federal concept for Nigeria was to be embodied in a new sovereign State, recognised de facto and de jure as governing Nigeria, it seems to me that we must be very careful before we suddenly start behaving as though they were no longer in that position.
This war is vile, and it has to be stopped by every means open to us. In this paper which has been circulated today we have the Federal point of view about why the negotiations to bring about a truce broke down. This is not the time to start giving new evidence. But this paper is worth reading, because at least it gives one point of view. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be in a position to comment on it when he replies to the debate.
As the debate has gone on I have become increasingly aware of one thing. I do not believe that either the Federal part of Nigeria or Biafra are in a position now to stop the supply of arms to Biafra. Therefore, the most valuable role that the United Kingdom can play is to offer her services here to negotiate—informally presumably—with those supplying arms to the Biafrans to see whether some sensible agreement can be reached to stop the supply of arms to enable a truce to begin. As long as either side assumes that if arms are cut off from it and the other side will go on getting supplies, I cannot see a truce being brought about very easily. Therefore, I think that the good offices we can still offer towards a truce would be of extreme value.
I support what was said earlier by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths). I think we should do everything we can from the humanitarian point of view—through the Red Cross, Oxfam and other organisations—to ensure that every possible opportunity is given for rehabilitation to take place and

for starvation to be prevented. Heaven knows, this risk is very great indeed. But I think we can do one more thing. We can try, through ordinary diplomatic channels, to stop the other side receiving arms as well. Who is supplying them? To the best of my information, it is largely France and Portugal. I do not know whether there are others. [An HON. MEMBER: "Russia and Czechoslovakia."] It may be that the Soviet Union is supplying arms. I do not know. The Government would probably know this better than most of us. I hope that we shall be told who are the principal suppliers of arms to Biafra. I would strongly urge that we offer our services, through ordinary diplomatic channels, to try to get an agreement between all the countries supplying arms to stop supplies until a truce has been achieved. We can then all think again, but let us hope that we go on a more peaceful basis from there.
I cannot believe, from what I know of the success that the rest of Nigeria is having in absorbing and giving good employment to the Ibos, that it is their desire to see the complete annihilation of the Ibo population. Reassurances on these matters can only be given as a result of a truce. What is said in advance of a truce will simply be pushed to one side and the battle go on. Therefore, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will do everything possible to try to bring about a truce by negotiating, through ordinary diplomatic channels, with a view to stopping the supply of arms to both sides. We must show ourselves ready to stop if the other side will stop.
Unless we do something like this we shall be in danger, by cutting off arms supplies ourselves without having made sure that the supply of arms to the other side also stops, of having said to the Federal Government of Nigeria, "You are no longer fit to be treated as the constitutional government of your country." This is a very dangerous step for us to take at this stage because it is making a deep inroad into the keystone of international relations as I have always understood them in a Parliamentary and democratic sense. Once we depart from recognising, with full rights, those who are de jure and de facto in control of their country, we are putting everything into the melting pot, and surely there is


enough in the melting pot in Africa already without us doing that.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I find myself in agreement with some of the things said by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), but by no means all.
My main purpose this afternoon is to express the hope that the Government will change their whole approach to this problem Ever since the period of tension began a year ago I have felt unhappy about the policy they have pursued. They seem to have taken the view—and no doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the Federation of Nigeria as it existed in 1966 must at all costs be preserved; that Colonel Gowon is the constitutional leader—should we say the Prime Minister of Nigeria?—that Biafra's secession was an illegal rebellion against the constitution; that, therefore, it was right to support Colonel Gowon and to give him arms; that with these arms he would be able to crush the rebellion in a matter of weeks; and that if we did not give him arms we should lose all our influence with him to persuade him to agree to a peaceful settlement.
I think that nearly every point in that argument is wrong. But most wrong of all was the Government's acceptance of Colonel Gowon's assurance that he could wind the conflict up in a matter of weeks. I believe that that error could have been avoided if, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said, the Ministers then at the Commonwealth Relations Office had been wise enough to meet Sir Louis Mbanefo, when he came to this country a year ago. He told me then that if war broke out it would be a long war, that Biafra could resist for many months, and that if their formal military resistance was beaten they would go into a guerrilla effort which would last indefinitely and cause appalling suffering not only to Biafrans but to all Nigerians as well. I wish that the Government had listened to Sir Louis Mbanefo, instead of refusing to meet him, as they did then.
I think it is right—and I am venturing on dangerous ground—to ask whether the Federation of Nigeria is really sacrosanct? We had the Central African Federation. The Government who made it had to

break it up. It proved to be an unworkable failure. We had the West Indian Federation, but it was broken up. We had the Aden Federation, but it was totally destroyed in the form in which the Tory Government made it. Why should only the Nigerian Federation be sacrosanct today? And was the Federation in its previous form worth the appalling price of a war?
I venture to quote what was said by Dr. Azikwe, the first President of Nigeria, a man who more than anyone else won Nigerian independence.
In December, 1965, he said:
If this embryo Republic must disintegrate, then, in the name of God, let the operation be a short and painless one. Let it not be featured by violence, which we shunned during the dark days of our national humiliation. And I have one advice to give our politicians—if they have decided to destroy our national unity, then they should summon a round-table conference to decide how our national assets should be divided before they seal their doom by satisfying their lust for office. I make this suggestion because it is better for us and for our many admirers abroad"—
and they had many admirers—
that we should disintegrate in peace and not in pieces. Should the politicians fail to heed this warning, then I venture the prediction that the experience of the … Congo will be child's play if it ever comes to our turn to play such a tragic role.
I wish that the Government had acted a year ago in the spirit of Dr. Azikwe's statesmanlike appeal, and had used their influence, publicly as well as privately, to work if necessary for whatever arrangements were required to secure that the war should not take place.
I do not believe that it would have required a total separation. The Biafrans have never asked for that. They are still offering to remain in a confederation which will give them the right to assure the protection of their people from the injustices and oppression which they believe they have suffered in the past.
I ask, next, whether Col. Gowon is really the constitutional Government of Nigeria, whether he is the successor of the murdered Prime Minister. By what constitutional process did he come to power? Everybody remembers the cruel facts. In January, 1966, the Nigerian Prime Minister and three regional Ministers were murdered. General Ironisi took over. He was an eminent man. He had commanded a United. Nations force


with distinction in the Congo. He took over the Government after the death of the Nigerian Prime Minister. He then formally abrogated the Constitution. That being so, I do not understand by what legal or constitutional obligations the Biafrans are now bound.
Perhaps if he had lived, General Ironisi would have been able to do what he planned. Perhaps he could have made a new constitution which would have brought unity with sufficient liberty and with peace. Alas, he did not live. Six months later, on July 29th, mutinous units of the Nigerian Army seized Major-General Ironisi and killed him. Col. Gowon then took over. I submit that that is the story of the constitutional authority which Col. Gowon wields today.
Then there happened the tragic massacre of the Ibos. At last Colonel Ojukwu declared Biafra's independence, with the overwhelming support of the people of the East. The Biafrans still offered negotiations. They still offered to stay in a looser confederation, to avoid moving towards a conflict. Colonel Gowon resolved to crush what he called the illegal rebellion, and then there arose at once the crucial question for Her Majesty's Government, the supply of arms from Britain.
I venture to read an extract from Keesing's Contemporary Archives about what happened 11 months ago. It says:
The United States State Department disclosed on July 11 that it had refused a request by the Nigerian Government for military aid on the ground that the dispute with Biafra was a purely internal matter to be settled by the Nigerians themselves. At the same time the British Government was considering a Nigerian request to purchase arms from Britain as a commercial transaction.
The British Government confirmed on August 9 that 'a small purchase' of arms was being sent to Nigeria by air. On August 15 two British aircraft flew arrns to Lagos, one with a consignment of 930 Belgian FN rifles from Birmingham, and the other with 60 mm. and 90 mm. ammunition made in France. Twelve newly arrived anti-aircraft guns (according to diplomatic sources also part of an arms consignment from Britain) were being emplaced around Lagos on August 10.
Two Czechoslovak-built jet fighters were reported on August 8 to have left Accra for Lagos; on August 16 a Polish and a Norwegian ship were reported to be unloading five jet aircraft and supporting armaments from unknown sources at Lagos; while on August 19 a total of 15 Soviet Antonoy transport aircraft carrying inter alia six MIG fighters and six MIG trainers, were reported to have landed at Kano

airport with about 170 Russian technicians for assembling the aircraft.
The first paragraph is the important one: the U.S. had refused arms—

Mr. Cordle: But on 17th August, in Kaduna we were bombed by B26s of the Biafrans, so they had already bought their arms from another source. What were the Federal Government expected to do?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am not saying that it is wrong to have anti-aircraft guns or fighters if one is being bombed, but that I wish that our Government had made it their major purpose to try to stop the supply of arms from all sources to both sides. That would have been a practical policy. If we had acted with the United States, and had said what they said, and had called on the Russians to join us, I believe they would have done so, which would have meant that the Czechs, the Poles and the Norwegians would have done so as well.
I find it very difficult to accept the Prime Minister's argument that, if we had refused to send these arms, we should have lost our influence with Colonel Gowon when we urged him to make a peaceful settlement. We have had no influence. Lagos has not listened to London. We could have had far greater influence had we acted with the United States and told both sides, "Our British people simply will not allow us to send arms to be used in a ghastly African civil war. There must be a settlement by peaceful means." That would have given us real influence for peace.
I venture to recall an experience through which I lived and which is relevant to the problem we face now. In 1932, there was a war between Bolivia and Paraguay. People will say that that was an international war and no analogy with Nigeria. But every war in Latin America is a civil war. In this Chaco war, the League of Nations did not at first intervene. It had lamentably failed to take any action about the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and people used the fatuous argument that what one could not do to Japan, one could not do to little nations like Bolivia and Paraguay —as though it were a great privilege to be allowed to make a war which was disastrous to all.
However, after some months, consciences began to stir and I am glad


to think that it was under a British lead, by Sir Anthony Eden, that negotiations for an all-round embargo on arms were begun and, finally, after many months, were successful. But the lesson is this— no sooner was the arms embargo made effective, than both sides decided to end the war.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths). We need, negotiated in London,. I hope, a truce; but a truce without conditions. We need a Commonwealth force to maintain order. That should be very easy to obtain. We need a fair negotiation without warlike operations going on. But the first step to all this, I believe, as I said yesterday at Question time, is a major effort by Her Majesty's Government to stop the supply of arms from all the sources in the world.

5.45 p.m.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home (Kinross and West Psrthshire): The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) for the responsible tone which he set at the beginning of the debate and which has been maintained by all the speakers. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be equally grateful for the fact that there has been no lack of realisation, of the delicacy of the situation or of the dilemma which Her Majesty's Government face in this Nigerian civil war. I emphasise the phrase "civil war" because this is its character; and this seems to me to be relevant to some later remarks that I shall make.
What is essential to the understanding of this war is that Africa is still essentially tribal, that the inherited differences have deep roots and that, when passions are let loose, as the missionary correspondent of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) witnessed, human rights and Geneva Conventions have no relevance in the minds of the combatants. That is true of either side which might get on top in a hereditary dispute of this kind. Therefore, I too think it unprofitable to take sides.
This is a very crucial war, as one might expect in the circumstances. Therefore, it is right that the outside world recognising the strict limitations on the ability of anyone to intervene in such a dispute, should react in the sense

that we seek ways to minimise the slaughter, to alleviate the suffering and, if possible, to stop the fighting.
I would interpolate that humanity requires of the Federal Government that they should give access to the Red Cross. There should be no doubt in their minds about the feeling of the House on this matter. There are thousands of refugees in Nigeria, large numbers of women and children, who are suffering dreadful hardships because of the war. The record of the Red Cross for impartiality in such circumstances is well known, so the Federal Government should be willing to admit the Red Cross. There is some contradiction between Press reports today and an answer by the Foreign Secretary yesterday about whether or not the Federal Government are willing to admit the Red Cross. I hope that he will be able to tell us the true position and that he will at least persuade the Federal Government that this is certainly necessary.
Yesterday—the House will understand why—the right hon. Gentleman put the Government's priority on another attempt to get the Federal Government and the Biafrans to join in a truce and to establish a peace conference designed to achieve a constitutional settlement. Of course, as many, including the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), have said today, such a settlement bristles with difficulties. If Biafra insists on secession and nothing less—let us remember that, in Africa, the seceders, on the whole, have succeeded —and if the Federal Government refuse to concede any autonomy or to divest themselves of any sovereignty, we may be face to face with the irreconcilable, and the war will be endless. By taking to the jungle and the water in Biafra guerilla warfare could be carried on for an indefinite time.
There is surely in this situation a way of statesmanship in which the Federal Nigerian Government must take the initiative. It is that they should indicate unmistakably and solemnly to the Ibo people that, if they lay down their arms and engage in constitutional talks, their lives will be safe and, as a guarantee of the safety of their lives, that the Federal Government will accept, between their own troops and those of the Biafrans, a Commonwealth force which would keep


the combatants apart and would guarantee the security of the Ibo people as long as the constitutional talks lasted.
I do not want to take long; hon. Members have been exemplary in the short speeches that they have made. We come in this context to the issue of the supply of arms to the Federal Government or the Biafrans. What part does it play, and how is a cessation of arms to help towards a settlement? The Foreign Secretary yesterday argued for the continuation of the present policies on the ground that, if arms shipments were stopped, Britain would lose all influence with the Federal Government in Nigeria.
The House must give weight to this argument, although I do not in certain circumstances completely accept its validity. Nevertheless, the influence which any country can bring to bear on the Nigerian situation is very little; even our own is very small, and the Foreign Secretary obviously does not want to forfeit the chance of bringing any influence he can to bear on the situation.
I confess that I am not much attracted —and I do not think any hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have been—by a unilateral gesture. Britain is always asked to make a moral gesture and no one else follows suit, and that does not make much contribution to peace.
After listening to the debate with, I hope, an open mind, I have come to some conclusions as to what we might try to do to help in the present situation. I hope that my conclusions are free from party political considerations, which has been the feature of our debate. Both sides of the House have been willing to give full credit to the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, and also to the Foreign Secretary for the help he has given to Sir Arnold Smith, but both sides of the House have perhaps felt that the Government have not quite appreciated up to now that a final and terrible massacre of the Ibos would be intolerable and that, if that situation came about, it would be even more insupportable to think that this had been achieved with the help of British arms.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said, and he is right, that we cannot intervene in the internal affairs of an independent

Commonwealth country. If we tried to do that, or if other Commonwealth countries tried to interfere with us, the Commonwealth would very quickly disintegrate. This is one of the dangers which we have faced. Even so, there is surely a duty of friendship from Britain to the people of Nigeria as a whole, both Biafrans and those who are represented by the Federal Government. There are certain suggestions in the context of friendship which I would advance. They are these.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will increase his efforts, with an even greater sense of urgency, if I may say so, to create a Commonwealth force which would be ready to go to Nigeria to take advantage of a political truce, to police that truce and keep the peace in that area. I believe that might have considerable attraction both to Biafra and to the Federal Government.
There is another possible action, and suggestions for this have come from both sides of the House. The intervention of the United Nations is not justified in this case. There is no threat to the external peace. This is, or might be, an unhappy break-up of a country simply through tribal and civil war. Nevertheless, although we may not use the United Nations, I believe that the Foreign Secretary could take another initiative. He could make an urgent effort to get all those who supply arms, either to the Federal Government or to Biafra, to stop doing so. I hope that he will do this.
Lastly, while appreciating all the difficulties in this final course, it is justifiable in the circumstances, if the Federal Government will not agree to a truce, and if they turn down the idea of a Commonwealth force to preserve the peace between the two opposing armies, to give them warning that no British Government could possibly resist the clamour that there would be to stop arms altogether from this country.
We have had a debate which has been very responsible. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be able to give to the House an assurance that he is conscious of the urgency which is required by hon. Members on all benches. If so, I hope that we shall be able to leave the matter for today on the understanding that these openings that have been suggested are pursued urgently. I hope that he will


be able to convince the House that this is very much in his mind.

5.57 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): No one could have listened to this debate without being moved and without sharing the deep anxiety which has been expressed by every hon. Member who has spoken, some of whom have a detailed and intimate knowledge of the part of the world we have been discussing and the problems involved.
It would be true to say that, although there have been differences of view, there is very wide general agreement that the objectives of policy should be to stop the slaughter, to avert massacre and famine and to promote, as far as this country can promote, a settlement which would involve both the preservation of the unity of Nigeria and effective and certain assurances for the Ibo people.
This was a view that was expressed particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffths), the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson). It is against the background of a common desire for such a policy that we must approach this question.
I realise that hon. Members have said that we are specially concerned about the present, more than about the past and more than about what may lie in the future if the present situation can be led into more hopeful paths. But, so that the House may understand how the Government have approached the problem, it is essential to say something about the past history of it.
The immediate matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) had in mind in asking for and securing this debate was that of the supply of arms. The question will naturally be asked, therefore: how did it come about that we were supplying arms at all to the Federal Government? It is important for a proper judgment of the question to see why that was so.
Before independence, it was natural that we were the traditional suppliers not only of arms, but of military training to Nigeria. She was heavily dependent on us, therefore, in all her defence

arrangements. It was we who helped to bring forward Nigeria to independence, so that she took her place in the world as an independent State and was recognised as such by all Governments.
In view of that, I must maintain— though here I am at variance with some, but by no means all, hon. Members— that it would at any rate have been wrong at the outset of the secession for us to have cut off supplies completely from the Federal Government. That would have been to have said to a Government, in effect, "We have put you in a position where you are very heavily dependent on us for the instruments of power. Now, when you are faced by a challenge to your authority, we will put you at a very serious disadvantage." At that time, supplies from this country accounted for 75 per cent. of Nigeria's supplies of arms from all sources. The proportion of current supplies which we provide is, of course, very much less than that.
I do not think that one can avoid the conclusion that if we had taken that action it would have been, and would have been interpreted as being, giving in practice approval, and substantial practical help to the movement for secession.
Apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), not many hon. Members have stressed the great importance of the issue of secession not only in Nigeria but throughout Africa. It has been a difficulty facing many African States whose boundaries originally were drawn to meet the rivalries of European Powers rather than on any ethnological principle or principle of self-determination.
It has been difficult for such States to weld different tribes into one people. But I believe that African statesmanship expressing itself in the Organisation for African Unity, has been right to maintain the principle that African States should endeavour to weld different tribes into one nation and should regard as a counsel of despair that, whenever it is difficult to bring different tribes together in one nation, the remedy should be secession and disintegration. If that were accepted as a general principle, it would be a very dark outlook for the future of Africa as a whole.
I have laboured that point because, if we do not grasp it fully, we do not understand the attitude of the Federal Government to the question of secession. If If we do not understand that, we put ourselves in a position where any actions that we might take are likely to fail in their effect.
I should make one other general point about the question of secession. If it were held right for what was once the Eastern Region of Nigeria to become the independent State of Biafra on the grounds that that is the wish of the Ibo people, is the same thing to be advanced by the very numerous non-Ibos living in that State of Biafra? Once the process of secession is admitted, there may be no end to it without tribal disintegration.
I believe that these considerations are weighty, and that is why I must disagree with some but not all hon. Members and maintain that Her Majesty's Government were right to decide that they could not and ought not to cut off supplies from the Federal Government when the secession began.
Clearly, the British Government would have failed in their duty if they had merely stood there. In view of our past connection, and as a matter of common humanity, we had a duty also to do what we could to help towards a peaceful settlement and, as an essential part of it, to try to remove the understandable fears of the Ibo people.
May I give the House a brief record of what the Government have been doing? In January, 1967, there was the little noticed and inadequately praised work of Mr. Malcolm MacDonald which led to the meeting at Aburi, in Ghana. It has been one of the tragedies of this story that the undertakings entered into at that meeting were given different interpretations by both sides and did not come into effect. But that does not lessen the value and merit of what Mr. MacDonald did, with the Government's support and approval.
Then, throughout the period between March and May, 1967, to which several hon. Members have referred and which has been the subject of some criticism of the Government's attitude, the Government were counselling restraint, a renewal of negotiations between the two

parties and, above all, the settlement of the dispute by peaceful means. Indeed, it was during this period that the Federal Government floated the idea that we should guarantee the security of a neutral place in Nigeria at which the leaders could meet. Unhappily, that idea came to nothing, because it was vetoed by Colonel Ojukwu. But, at this point, London was speaking and Lagos was listening. I cannot accept the suggestion that during this period we were failing in our duty or that a deaf ear was turned to us in Lagos. Unhappily, that idea was not acceptable to Colonel Ojukwu.
When the secession occurred in May, 1967, although we could not recognize what claimed to be the independent State of Biafra none the less, in order to make it clear that we were not taking merely a barren legalistic view but wanted to maintain contact despite the fact that we could not recognise Biafra, our Deputy High Commissioner, Mr. Parker, remained at Enugu until the action of the Biafrans in interfering with his communications and molesting his staff made it impossible for him to stay there any longer.
Throughout the autumn and winter of 1967 we gave full support to the work of Mr. Arnold Smith which has been praised by more than one hon. Member during this debate. Despite his efforts, when it appeared that there was not to be any meeting or progress, in April, 1968, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took the initiative with Dr. Arikpo, the Federal Commissioner for External Affairs. There was a meeting between Dr. Arikpo, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary, and that helped to make possible the start of talks at Kampala.
The Kampala talks are now—some hon. Members have said broken down— I hope in a state of suspense, but until recently our main hopes for success were in those Kampala talks, and the fact that they were being held at all was due to the efforts which Her Majesty's Government made during the period that I have described. These talks may well be resumed through the talks my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Shepherd, is now having and will be resuming at the end of this week with the leading figures on both sides.
I thought it right to set out that record so as to make clear that the Government have not; been idle during this period. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say that in every field in which there has been any approach to, or hope of settlement, it has been our action which has pushed things forward, and any hopes there are of settlement spring in the main from action which we have taken.
I must add to that that if we had taken a decision to cut off the supply of arms to the Federal Government none of those actions could have been taken and we should probably not even have the Kampala talks and the possibility of a resumption of them which we now have. I thought it right to set out those facts from the past.
We must turn now to what is in the minds of so many hon. Members, which was foreshadowed yesterday by a Question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maud-ling) when he suggested in column 36 of yesterday's HANSARD, that the Government should reconsider their policy on this point—that is the point of the supply of arms—when dangers of massive slaughter appeared to be brooding on the scene, and the same thought was put again emphatically in the speech just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), when he emphasised what the feeling would be throughout the world if, at this juncture, there were a massacre of the Ibo people, and, in particular, what feeling there would be in this country knowing that we are one of the suppliers of arms to the Federal Government. This one must take into account.
If we make the supposition that it were the intention of the Federal Government not merely to preserve the unity of Nigeria but to proceed without mercy either with the slaughter or the starvation of the Ibo people, or if we were to make the supposition that it were the intention of the Federal Government to take advantage of a military situation in order to throw aside with contempt any terms of reasonable settlement, then the arguments which justified the policy we have so far pursued would fall, and we would have to reconsider, and more than reconsider, the action we have so far taken.
In that sense I do, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) asked me to do, take into account—and I give that phrase the same seriousness and weight as he did—the facts, the evidence and the feelings that have been expressed by so many hon. Members during this debate.
But it is fortunately a supposition that the Federal Government would behave in that manner. It would not be right to treat that supposition as if it were a fact and for me to declare now that it is our policy to stop supplies. I notice that throughout the debate there were many hon. Members who did not want me or urge me to take that rigid and unconditional step.
This is the proposition that I want to put before the House and I shall give certain further reasons why I believe it is the right proposition. As I said, we should reconsider, and more than reconsider, the policy, but I do not believe that it would be right now to treat that supposition as a fact. Indeed, as I shall show there are substantial reasons for not doing so. It is perhaps invidious to single out particular hon. Members in a debate that has been so distinguished by the quality of all the speeches made in it, but I noticed that some hon. Members who spoke most movingly and with great knowledge of the subject refrained from asking me to take what I have called that rigid and unconditional step. I think that they were right, particularly as there are better hopes and possibilities than the, grim supposition which I made a little while ago.

Mr. Frank Allaun: It is true that nobody asked for unilateral action. Is the objection which my right hon. Friend is now taking to immediate action against collective action by suppliers of arms/

Mr. Stewart: I am coming to that point. I wanted to draw the attention of the House to some of what I call the better hopes and possibilities.
What should be the object of our policy—cease-fire, unity of Nigeria, the complete assurance of safety for the Ibo people so that they shall feel delivered from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly called the terrible choice that they feel sometimes faces


them, either to die fighting or to die passively? I do not underestimate the difficulty of reconciling the three objectives of stopping the slaughter, of holding Nigeria together and of giving effective and decisive assurance to the Ibo people, and I think the House will understand that it is not possible for the British Government to set out a blueprint as to how all this should be reconciled or what the terms of settlement can be.
We have offered and continued to offer our good offices, but we are not and should not be accepted as an arbitrator or a mediator. It would be absurd to try and set out a blueprint for a settlement, but there are some matters that bear on the settlement that are worth mentioning and that link with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me.
Assurance to the Ibo peoples is bound to involve, in my judgment, some kind of international force to give them some degree of security. Indeed, it is interesting and encouraging to note that at one point General Gowon suggested that part of a settlement could be—I think that he used this term—an international observer force to see that if there were a cease-fire, the Ibos were not impossibly at a disadvantage.
The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire spoke of a Commonwealth police force. The House will understand that we could not impose such a force except with the consent of the two sides. We have, of course, examined the sheer practicalities of such a thing and I believe, now that discussions are actually going on, that this is one of the matters for which, if consent could be got, we should work as steadily as we can.
The only word of caution I must give is that we cannot impose anything. We are not invited or authorised to act as arbitrators here. We seek with all the resource and imagination we can summon, and with the help, as in this debate, of the collective wisdom of the House, whatever means may bring a settlement, and it is our job to see if we can get the parties concerned to agree to it. It is in that sense necessarily qualified—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel not unnecessarily qualified—that I accept his suggestion.
I now wish to mention a recent statement by Colonel Ojukwu in which he put forward a proposal for an embargo on the supply of arms all round on both sides. It is in this connection that I wish to take up the question of international action to get a cessation of supplies all round. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) intervened about this and the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire stressed it. I must tell the House that the practical difficulties of getting such an agreement would be very great indeed. In many cases, of course, supplies to both sides are not direct governmental supplies; the action taken by a government is often simply that of permitting, or of not bothering to stop, supplies being sent by private suppliers.
One would, therefore, be dealing with a very wide range of people concerned in this, and to make it effective one would have to require all the Governments concerned, not merely that they should pass some law, or issue some fiats, but that they should be continually active to see that their prohibition on the sending of arms to either side by their subjects was obeyed. I am sorry to have to tell the House that my estimate of the possibilities of reaching agreement on this is not as optimistic as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East.
When I say that we will look again at this, I would be misleading the House if I said it in a way which gave the impression that it only needs a round of diplomatic activitiy to get the result. I am afraid that the practical difficulties would be much greater than is sometimes supposed and that there would be the complication that since the sources of supply to the Biafrans are far more —if I may use this word—miscellaneous than those which go to Nigeria, it would perhaps be all too easy to work out an international agreement that would be imperfectly administered and the effect of which would be totally one-sided in operation.
I have, therefore, considered whether one could possibly make this effective by working at the other end; by getting not so much a universal refusal to supply as an effective agreement by both sides not to receive. It is in this connection that Colonel Ojukwu's statement is interesting. It was made very recently


and we will have to study it to see if progress can be made on those lines.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: In view of what my right hon. Friend said earlier about the great fear that there might be a massacre of the Ibo people, and of what he said following that, about any action along the lines of an international force depending on the agreement and approval of the two sides, can he not go further and say firmly to the Federal Government that unless they accept a policy of such an international force to ensure that there will not be such a massacre, Her Majesty's Government will not continue with their present policy?

Mr. Stewart: In the light of what has been said in the House, it will be entirely right for us to draw the attention of the Federal Government to what feeling is here and to what not only this House but humanity expect of them. However, I do not think that I should tie myself to particular items like that at a time when discussion with the Federal Government is actually going on and 1 do not think that I could say more than that I note and sympathise with what my hon. Friend has said.
Having mentioned the statement made by Colonel Ojukwu I should also mention certain words and actions by General Gowon which, I think, may put the Federal Government in a more favourable light than some hon. Members were prepared to view them. I believe that we all know that if we start retailing all the fearful happenings in this war, there is much with which both sides and many individuals will feel that they must reproach themselves.
The words and actions of General Gowon to which I draw the attention of the House are these. He has made it clear that he does not desire to invade the Biafran heartlands and that he will try to avoid that step. The Federal Government are not, as it were, poised for an immediate advance upon and destruction of the Ibo people. Next, he has put forward the concept—I referred to this earlier—of an international—I do not think his use of the word would rule out Commonwealth—observer force for the security of the Ibos.
I wish next to mention the action which he has taken on the question of Red

Cross supplies and food, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly, the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire and others expressed interest. General Gowon has assured the International Red Cross of the willingness of his Government to acept deliveries of Red Cross supplies to Enugu, Port Harcourt or any other airport under Federal control for onward transport by road to an agreed point in Biafran-controlled territory, to be decided with the Biafran authorities.
The International Committee of the Red Cross has expressed its satisfaction with this proposal as being the best practical means of delivering bulk supplies where they are most needed and it is engaged at present in obtaining the agreement of the Biafran authorities. General Gowon has also offered to supply transport and any assistance the Red Cross might need. This, I think, answers the question which the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire put. It is important because this is a question not only of medical supplies but of food supplies and of doing what can be done, I wish I could say to avert hunger, but at least to reduce and mitigate it.

Mr. David Winnick: Arising from my right hon. Friend's statement about the prospect of Red Cross supplies being able to get through, would it be possible for Her Majesty's Government to make additional supplies available, bearing in mind the number of men, women and children who are starving in this war? In other words, will the Government be able to lay on special plans to provide food which is urgently needed by these people?

Mr. Stewart: We have already made a gift to the Red Cross for this purpose and I hope—I speak without commitment —that we may be able to do more than that.
I must now return for a few moments to the arguable side of the matter. I would ask the House to believe, in the light of what I have just said about the attitude of General Gowon and of the possibilities—and I would not put it more highly than that—there are of reaching an agreed settlement, that if we were now, particularly in the light of what has been said by General Gowon recently in connection with the Red Cross, to reply by


taking the action of stopping arms supplies, that could, I believe, have no other result at present than an estrangement between us and the Federal Government in which the actual power of the Federal Government to do evil if they wished would in no way be lessened; for we are only one among many suppliers, and their will to do good might well be weakened if they received at this stage a rebuff of this kind.
There are not only three possibilities. There are also the contracts to which these possibilities might be turned into facts. The purpose of the talks which my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Shepherd has been having and will shortly be resuming is to make it easier to get back to the real conversations at Kampala. Those lines of contact are still open and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself will be meeting Chief Enahoro immediately after the conclusion of this debate. I hope that the House will believe that the Government have not dealt with this matter without understanding or compassion. But if we have not on all points been able to satisfy some hon. Members, this has not been due to ignorance of the problem. Certainly, it has not been due to lack of feeling or lack of desire to end the war and to avert the fearful danger which some hon. Members have foreseen and dreaded.
I would hope in the light of this, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, that the House might be prepared to leave the matter there, conscious that thanks to the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chicwick there has been this opportunity to see that the Government are fully and clearly informed of the wishes of the House.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: I believe that the whole House would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend for the admirable logic which he has demonstrated in this case. I believe that it is a logic not untinged with a realisation of the human emotions involved. It is the kind of speech I

would have expected my right hon. Friend to make, and largely I agree with him. But in one respect at least I would wish to challenge him. That is when he implies that, as far as this country is concerned, one object of policy should be the unity of Nigeria. It seems to me that the boundaries of States in Africa are the artificial creations of European Powers. This has been the trouble with other States in Africa and I believe this is, in part, the trouble in Nigeria now.
We cannot anticipate or expect that those artificial creations should necessarily prevail for the rest of history; and I would hope that when my right hon. Friend says that that is one object of policy he merely means that it is one object of policy of the Federal Government of Nigeria and not necessarily an object of policy of the British Government.
I believe that we must all surely agree with my right hon. Friend on the essential point that a unilateral cessation of arms shipments or a supposed collective cessation which could not be adequately enforced is not just a moral gesture, but is, in fact, a decision as to whom one wishes to prevail. The perfect example of this before the Second World War was Spain. Surely, nobody now feels that any decision not to provide arms for that particular civil war had any other than purely a political as distinct from purely a moral purpose.
My right hon. Friend said he did not take a barren, legalistic view. I am glad that he did not. Certainly, that is not the kind of view that the House would have wished to hear. But the trouble with this particular case is not the old adage that hard cases make bad law, but that international law in respect of what other States should do towards States which are suffering from civil rebellion or disorder is archaic.
It being three hours after the commencement of the proceedings, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings pursuant to Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration.)

Orders of the Day — GAMING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Speaker: I have posted up the list of selected Amendments, as is my wont. The first one today is Amendment No. 154.

Clause 42

LOCAL AUTHORITY NOT TO MAINTAIN OR CONTRIBUTE TO PREMISES LICENSED UNDER PART II

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I beg to move Amendment No. 154, in page 35, line 16, at end insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to the letting by a local authority of premises which they maintain or to the maintenance of which they contribute for use by a licensed bingo club for the playing of bingo.
This Clause prohibits local authorities from maintaining or contributing towards the maintenance of any premises which are licensed for bingo. This means, of course, that town halls, village halls and other premises cannot be used for bingo except on a non-profit-making basis. That type of bingo is hardly likely to bring in attractive returns. Naturally, I am against local authorities subsidising or operating bingo in any way but I find difficulty in objecting to a local authority letting a hall at an economic rent to a commercial concern to run bingo evenings.
This matter was raised in Committee when a very short debate on it was replied to by the Under-Secretary, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne). But both then and during the Second Reading I believe that he missed the point. He spoke then of a clarification of the 1963 Act and gave his views on municipally-operated bingo, but, of course, I am completely against that. But I cannot see why municipally-owned halls should not be let for bingo. We all know that halls cost a lot of money to keep up and it is important to have them used as often as possible. In my own constituency of Dumfries there is a large hall and a regular income from bingo would

be most helpful towards its maintenance and repair.
This certainly would help to reduce rents for other organisations, many of them voluntary, amateur sports clubs, badminton clubs, and so on. In some areas there may be only one hall and that owned by the borough council, the county council, or in Scotland, the district council. In those cases, if there were no alternative hall for playing bingo, this form of pastime would be banned.
I am not setting out the case for bingo as a game, or form of entertainment, but it certainly gives many people a lot of pleasure, company in the evening, and enjoyment. I cannot see why this should be prevented by the Bill. Earlier in our discussions we heard that bingo is little more than a family game. We rightly stress in the House that local authorities should be given as much power as possible over their own affairs. Surely we can trust local authorities to use their discretion wisely. If bingo was not conducted in a seemly way, the local authority would stop the let. This Clause restricts the use of local authority property. If it is passed as it stands, it would show little confidence in local authorities being able to run their own affairs.
No doubt the Under-Secretary will stress the commercial aspect. That is a very narrow view to take. I hope that he will not bring it out in connection with a local authority letting a hall for this type of entertainment. Another argument he may bring out is that under the Bill a licence should be granted only where there is a significant demand shown to exist and, therefore, if there is a demand for a club, the club owner should be able to provide adequate premises. I do not agree with that argument. Size is important in relation to bingo. The larger the number of players the better for all concerned. Often local authorities have large halls which are available for renting. We should allow an authority to hire out to whom it thinks fit and to receive a substantial income in return.
The Amendment is self-explanatory and would be valuable for the ratepayers. I hope that the Government will accept it.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): Clause 42(1) prohibits a local authority from maintaining or contributing towards the maintenance of any premises licensed under the Bill. The principle on which the Clause is based is that public authorities should not be concerned in the provision of facilities for commercial gaming. It is well to remember that this Clause replaces Section 39 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963, which forbids local authorities to maintain premises,
wholly or mainly for the purpose of persons resorting thereto habitually for the purpose of taking part in gaming.
The effect of that provision was to do no more than make clear that local authorities had no power to run casinos and the like; any case in which an authority let a hall on one or two nights for the use of a commercial bingo club or any other gaming club was not within the scope of this provision.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 42 approaches the problem more directly. It prevents a local authority from maintaining or subsidising premises licensed for gaming, but that is all. The local authority is, therefore, free to maintain premises and to allow them to be used for a variety of purposes in this connection. They may be used by a member's club or institute which is registered for gaming, or which provides it without the need for registration under the special concessions made for sixpenny bingo in Clause 39, or by anyone who wishes to promote an entertainment, which may consist of bingo, for purposes other than private gain under the terms of Clause 40, or for charitable fetes, bazaars and so on permitted under Section 48 of the 1963 Act at which games may be provided as " incidents ".
It has been argued by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) that in certain areas licensed clubs will have none but local authority premises in which they could operate. This argument raises directly the issue whether commercial bingo is so desirable a feature of the English, the Welsh, or the Scottish scene that local authorities should be free to provide premises for this purpose within the rates. We believe the answer to that must be in the negative. What then remains is the question whether there can be any harm when a local authority is accus-

tomed to hire a hall for general purposes and from time to time hires it to a commercial bingo club without any favourable treatment but exactly on the same conditions as for any other person or body.
The difficulty is to see how such a practice can be reconciled with the objects and nature of the licensing control system. The Bill provides that a licence shall not be granted to a club unless there is a substantial demand for it and that that demand can be shown to exist. Further, the justices must be satisfied as to the suitability of the premises and that strict supervision is maintained.
It is very doubtful, to say the least, whether those conditions could be fulfilled by a club which has no permanent abode of its own but which is compelled by lack of membership or lack of resources to rely on the periodic hiring of a local authority hall which is also used for a variety of purposes and in whose management it would have no effective say, even if such a club could meet the fiscal and other costs of gaming under licence without scamping or avoiding the obligations which other licensed clubs would be expected to assume to maintain proper supervision over the conduct of play. We would be surprised if licensing justices were prepared to issue licenses on such a basis. Nor should we think it right to open the way for them so to do.

Mr. Antony Buck: I am very disappointed by the response we have had from the Under-Secretary. He said that the Amendment would not be effective because no one would be allowed to play bingo or to have licensed premises in local authority halls. This is a matter for the licensing justices. If the hon. Gentleman were right he would be proved right by the effluxion of time and by the fact that applications would be turned down. I fail to see any objection to the Amendment.
The hon. Gentleman said that there has first to be demand before a licence is granted and that it is unlikely to be shown that there would be a demand for bingo in a hall owned by a local authority and let by the authority once or twice a week. Why does he say that? It may be possible for the applicants to establish that there is a demand for bingo on certain days in a small town. It may be that a


local authority hall is the only hall available. What objection can there be to the local authority letting that hall, at an economic rent, to bingo operators? If the demand is there it will be shown before the licensing justices who, presumably, would grant the licence.
The Under-Secretary suggested that in no circumstances could the applicants satisfy the justices as to the suitability of the premises. I do not know what authority the Minister has for saying that. There is a wide variety of halls, big and small, owned by local authorities throughout the country, and some are eminently suitable for use for licensed bingo from time to time.
The Government's attitude is very churlish. It is pleasant to see the hon.

Gentleman's predecessor sitting beside him. As the hon. and learned Gentleman, now Minister of State, Treasury, said in Committee, the question is where one draws the line. In this case the Government have drawn it in the wrong place. The result will be minor inconvenience to people and lack of amenity if the Government do not accept the Amendment, which we are very grateful to my hon. Friend for having moved.

I have been entirely unconvinced by the Government's arguments and hope that we shall pursue the Amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 197.

Division No. 211.]
AYES
[6.52 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harris Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nott, John


Allason, James (Hemol Hempstead)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Onslow, Cranley


Astor, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hiley, Joseph
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hooson, Emlyn
Percival, Ian


Blffen, John
Hordern, Peter
Peyton, John


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hornby, Richard
Pounder, Rafton


Boardtnan, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Body, Richard
Hunt, John
Prior, J. M. L.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pym, Francis


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bullus, Sir Eric
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ridley, H. Nicholas


Carlisle, Mark
Jopling, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Royle, Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cordle, John
Kirk, Peter
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Corfield, F. V.
Kitson, Timothy
Silvester, Frederick


Costaln, A. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Speed, Keith


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stainton, Keith


Currie, G. B. H.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dance, James
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
L'oyd Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Frank (Mots Side)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Loveys, W. H.
Temple, John M.


Oeedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lubbock, Eric
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Drayson, C. B.
MacArthur, Ian
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Eden, Sir John
Macleod Rt. Hn. lain
Wall, Patrick


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maginnis, John E.
Walters, Dennis


Emery, Peter
Maude, Angus
Ward, Dame Irene


Errington, Sir Eric
Mawby, Ray
Weatherill, Bernard


Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Webster, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fortescue, Tim
Milts, Peter (Torrington)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Coodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Cower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Grant, Anthony
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Younger, Hn. George


Griffiths Eldnn (Bury St. Edmunds)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh



Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Alrey
Mr. Jasper More and


Hall-Davis, A. C. F.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Hector Monro.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Ashley, Jack
Barnes, Michael


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Barnett, Joel


Alldritt, Wa ter
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Baxter, William


Archer, Peter
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bence, Cyril




Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hamling, Willam
O'Malley, Brian


Binns, John
Hannan, Wlliam
Orme, Stanley


Blackburn, F.
Harper, Joseph
Oswald, Thomas


Blenkintop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Haseldine, Norman
Paget, R. T.


Boyden, James
Hattertley, Roy
Palmer, Arthur


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hazell, Bert
Pannetl, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bradley, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.
Park, Trevor


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hooley, Frank
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brooks, Edwin
Homer, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (C'gow, Sp'burn)
Huckfield, Leslie
Probert, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Randall, Harry


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rankin, John


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rees, Merlyn


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Reynolds, Bt. Hn. C. W.


Chapman, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Coe, Denis
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Coleman, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Kenyon, Clifford
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lawson, George
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Leadbitter, Ted
Rose Paul


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Ledger, Ron
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dalyell, Tarn
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
shaw Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lee, John (Reading)
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dell, Edmund
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwieh)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Dickens, James
McBride, Neil
Slater, Joseph


Dobson, Ray
McCann, John
Small, William


Doig, Peter
MacColl, James
Sonw, Julian


Driberg, Tom
MacDermot, Niall
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Macdonald, A. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McGuire, Michael
Symonds, J. B.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Taverns Dick


Ellis, John
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Tinn, James


English, Michael
Mackie, John
Urwin, T. W.


Ensor, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Varley, Eric C.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Deame Valley)


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wallace, George


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Manuel, Archie
Watklns, David (Consett)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marquand, David
Wilkins, W. A.


Forrester, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillary)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Gardner, Tony
Millan, Bruce
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Garrett, W. E.
Molloy, William
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Winnick, David


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Woof, Robert


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Murray, Albert
Yates, Victor


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Newens, Stan



Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phillp (Derby, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ogden, Eric
 Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

Clause 45

SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 104, in page 36, line 1, after 'required', to insert 'or authorised'.
This is a drafting Amendment. Some notices under the Bill are not obligatory and therefore not required to be served. Clause 19(3), for example, authorises the

Board to serve a notice on any person appearing to it to be acting in any capacity as a manager, organiser or supervisor in relation to gaming but it does not require the Board to serve such a notice. Hence the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 30, in line 3, after 'person', insert:
'except a notice under section 12(3)(b) of this Act'.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Clause 46

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 36, line 23, at beginning to insert:
' Except as provided by subsection (4) of this section'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to consider at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36.

Mr. Morgan: The first four of these Amendments increase the fees to be charged to licensed clubs in respect of licences. The fees are increased from £250 to £1,000 for a grant, from £100 to £200 for a renewal and from £50 to £150 for a transfer of a licence. The new subsection (4), however, saves from the increases clubs licensed for the playing of bingo only, where the present fees of £250, £100 and £50 respectively are preserved.
As explained in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill, the principle is that the control system should be self-financing, the expenses of the Gaming Board and the justices being met in full through the fees charged to the clubs, licensed or registered, to gaming operatives and machine retailers for certificates of approval by the Board, and so on. The fees set out in Clause 46(3) were devised on this principle of costing. Their yield is now likely, however, to be reduced by changes of policy announced since the Bill was introduced. At the same time, the responsibilities entrusted to the Board—particularly in the vetting of applicants for licences—are to be increased.
The reduction in the yield of fees will be caused chiefly by the decision to reduce substantially the number of licensed commercial clubs offering games other than bingo perhaps to only a fraction of their present number. Also, while it was intended that licences and certificates of registration should on first grant be valid for no more than one year, it seems that, for procedural reasons, this period will now have to be extended to something nearer 18 months, annual renewals then to follow.
Finally, most bingo club operatives are to be relieved from the necessity of being

certificated by the Board, so that there may be about 8,000 fewer people paying the £5 per head fee with this object.
These changes have little or no relevance to the registered clubs or to the machine retailers; nor is the Board to assume any additional responsibilities in respect of them. Logically, therefore, there are no grounds for increasing the fees in their case. While the licensed commercial bingo clubs will profit from the changes through the relief of the majority of their employees from certification by the Board, and while the work which this may save the Board will be more than offset by new responsibilities for vetting all applicants for licences, including bingo licences, and their financial sponsors, the policy of encouraging bingo clubs to abandon other forms of gaming will be best served by confining increases of fees to those which do not do so. Also bingo clubs which abandon other forms of gaming are likely to suffer some loss of revenue in consequence.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: In Committee we were given notice of the Government's intention to increase the charges. The then Under-Secretary of State said that the Government were thinking of increasing some of the fees. But this turns out in one case to be multiplying the fee by four—from £250 to £1,000—in another to doubling the fee and in a third to multiplying by three. We appreciate that there has been a fall in the value of money under the present Government but we are surprised to see such great increases.
I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the objective is to ensure that the fees cover the Board's expenses. But I hope that he will bear in mind that, in Committee, we said that this must not be regarded as a means of underhand taxation. Taxation of gaming clubs should be severe and it should be done by the Treasury. Indeed, it has recently been increased by the Budget.
The hon. Gentleman said the increases had also been made necessary by the decision to reduce the number of clubs. I did not realise that we had agreed to reduce them by more than we set out to do on Second Reading. It might have been better to have waited to see what the expenses of the Board would be


rather than make such substantial increases at this stage, but this is the Government's decision and we do not propose to oppose it.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: What is the estimate of the number of gaming clubs upon which these figures are assessed? In dealing with the question of ensuring that the public do not have to pay, upon what basis was that principle assessed? It is one thing to say that the inspectorate and the salaries of the executives of the Board are covered but another thing to say that all the information leading to the original decision of whether or not to grant a certificate should be calculated within those expenses because, in many cases, there will be a refusal of an original consent certificate.
In an article in the Daily Telegraph last year I suggested that the Gaming Board should have a chairman and members appointed by the Home Secretary as impartial persons of repute who would licence and supervise gaming establishments and assess and collect from them the money necessary to conduct its affairs without cost to the public. I submit that that is the right principle, that is to say that the inspectorate, the cost of the machinery, is properly chargeable to the establishments which are licensed but not the rest of the cost.
I would respectfully agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Run-corn (Mr. Carlisle) said a moment ago, that really it would have been very much better merely to have indicated in general terms through a statement to the Press at this stage that it was probable that the charge would be £500 or £1,000 and not to have written it into the Bill, because I do not believe, subject to the reply from the Minister, that the Government are in a position at the moment to assess what is the existing cost which would arise from existing clubs, still less how many clubs will be registered under the Bill. Provided they are proper and well-conducted establishments it depends —does it not?—on demand, and the demand in London and in certain of the other cities is quite considerable. Provided they are properly conducted establishments it is not for us in this House to rule now as to what the licensing authorities will say. Therefore, I think

it was very difficult to lay down these Amendments in this way.
I would ask, as I say, for some information, and for an assurance that they will be looked at carefully, and that, if they are too high, they will be brought down—which would be an almost unique event in the history of the Labour Party's taxation policy.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I refrain from succumbing to the temptations to political partisanship which may have been held before me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies).
These revised scales appear because of added duties which have been created with regard to the Board and the licensing justices. They are based on the best assessments which can be made at present. I readily concede that there are very considerable imponderables. At this stage, neither expenditure nor revenue can be calculated with assurance. There are, as I say, many uncertain factors.
I would remind the hon. Members that subsection (4) of the Clause confers power to vary the fees by regulation, so that any necessary corrections can be made in the light of experience. I do not accept that it would be proper for us to leave blank the figure at the moment. We have made many calculations. We have made them on the best evidence which is available. I am not going to be drawn into estimating how many clubs may be licensed. It would be impolitic and imprudent of me to seek to do so, but the intention is that the Board should pay its way, and presumably, no more than that, and any adjustments upwards or downwards can be made by the Home Secretary by way of regulations.

Mr. Buck: Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), whether there has been any alteration in the Government's views on numbers between Second Reading and now—without, of course, trying to give any estimated number?

Mr. Morgan: No. As far as I am aware, there certainly have been no changes of policy at all, but the Bill has


been very considerably improved in Committee. That was due, if I may pay the tribute, to the efforts of both sides of the Committee, and as the result of those improvements certain factors have been created which bear on the amounts which were originally inserted in the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 32, in page 36, line 26, leave out ' £250' and insert '£1,000'.

No. 33, in line 27, leave out '£100' and insert ' £200 '.

No. 34, in line 28, leave out '£50' and insert ' £150 '.

No. 35, in line 43, at end insert:
(4) Where on the grant or renewal of a licence under this Act in respect of any premises the licensing authority impose any restrictions under paragraph 23 of Schedule 2 to this Act limiting gaming to which Part II of this Act applies to the playing of bingo the fee to be charged—

(a)under paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section, shall be £250 instead of £1,000, and
(b)under paragraph (b) of that subsection, shall be £100 instead of £200;

and, if the licence is transferred while those restrictions continue to be in force, the fee to be charged under paragraph (c) of that subsection shall be £50 instead of £150.

No. 36, in page 37, line 2, after ' (3)', insert ' or subsection (4) '.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Clause 50

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 37, in page 38, line 25, at end insert:
travelling showmen's pleasure fair' means a pleasure fair consisting wholly or mainly of amusements provided by travelling showmen which is held on any day of a year on premises not previously used in that year on more than twenty-seven days for the holding of such a pleasure fair.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take the next three Amendments together.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 95, in page 39, line 29, to leave out from ' that' to ' entitled' in line 31 and to insert:
'no game played by means of the machine can result in a player, or a person claiming under a player, receiving or being'. 

Clause 50(5) provides that a machine shall not be taken to be used for gaming if, in effect, all it offers to the successful player is that he should have another go free of charge, or, alternatively, the return of his stake. The substantial effect of these Amendments is simply to bring clearly within the saving machines which may offer a succession of free goes, depending on the player's continuing success. The other changes are ones of drafting only.

Mr. Buck: This is a small point. It was raised in Committee so that the matter might be put right. The same point was dealt with, in a different context, earlier in the Bill. Now it is clear that this concession will be available to machines which give a right to play repetitively time after time after time. We approve of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 96, in page 39, line 35, leave out 'the game again ' and insert'
one or more further games '.

No. 97, in line 38, after first ' tokens', insert:
'as a prize in respect of a game '.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

GRANT, RENEWAL, CANCELLATION AND TRANSFER OF LICENCES

Mr. Speaker: We come now to Amendment No. 38, with which I propose we take Nos. 39, 40, 41 and 50.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 42, line 33, at beginning insert:
'Subject to the provisions of this Schedule with respect to certificates of consent'.
This is an important series of Amendments which have been introduced to meet the desire of both sides of the Committee, and a view expressed with the minimum of dissent, that the Government should give more powers to the Gaming Board, and that is the basic purpose of this group of Amendments. The idea of the Committee was that we should try to prevent undesirable elements from establishing themselves in the field of


gaming and that the opportunity of running a gaming establishment should be regarded—I put it, I think, fairly—as more of a privilege than of a right, and that the Bill should, therefore, it was represented in the Committee, be amended to empower the Board to scrutinise all applications before they are allowed to go forward to the justices, and without having to account for its decisions.
I wish to bring these points out because, as I said yesterday in another connection, although on a similar matter, it is important that the House should know what is being done.
This Amendment gives effect to that view. Broadly speaking, questions such as assessment of demand can be dealt with thoroughly and effectively in open court, and demand and other matters of the kind will continue to be dealt with by the justices, acting with the Board's advice. Ordinarily, it would be impossible to contemplate powers of such an arbitrary nature as this, and they are justified only if restricted to the field in which they are manifestly needed, and that is to matters which bear upon an applicant's trustworthiness.
Formally, a person applying for a certificate of consent—that is what a person would ask the Gaming Board for—is required to do no more than specify the premises concerned and say whether the application he intends to make to the justices will be for a bingo club licence or another. But the Board will probably ask for other information bearing upon the applicant's record, experience, resources and backing. The nature of the information that will be sought is likely to vary in different cases. It would be unnecessary and perhaps hampering to the Board to attempt a comprehensive description.
First, it is to be expected that there will be a flood of applications from clubs now operating, with which it may take the Board five or six months, or more, to deal. But, since the approach to the Board for certificates of consent will be the first and indispensable stage in setting up the new control, the sooner a start can be made the better. Since, too, the Board will need to be ready to advise justices on demand before the first of

the applications come before them for hearing, certificates of consent having been obtained, the sooner the Board can obtain a complete conspectus of the field the better.
It is, therefore, provided, under subsection (4)(3), that all applications for certificates of consent must be made to the Board within three months of the relevant provisions being brought into operation. Assuming that the Bill becomes law at the end of July, this part of the Schedule is likely to be made operative almost immediately after the end of July. All applications will thus be before the Board possibly as early as the end of October, which is what we hope.
The Board would proceed to deal with them as soon as it could, but it might take the Board, before the last one was dealt with, literally up to the end of April. The provisions dealing with the second stage, namely, application to the justices, will be held back until this work is nearing completion. So the actual hearings by the justices will not begin until it has been completed—say, in May of next year. Ample time will thus be given for the Board to consider its advice to the justices, but without holding up progress in general.
During the first transitional period, hearing by the justices will not be confined to a single annual session in May, but will continue throughout the year until the work has been disposed of. But the normal practice, after this transition, will be for all grants and renewals to be dealt with at regular May sessions— the first presumably being in May, 1970— with application to the justices being made in the preceding January or February. With this timetable in mind, it is proposed that applicants should approach the Board for certificates of consent before the end of the preceding October. This would allow the Board three to four months to dispose of the cases.
The sole issue to which the Board is entitled to address itself is whether the applicant is likely to be both able and diligent to secure compliance with the Act and the proper, honest and orderly conduct of the licensed premises and the gaming to be carried on there. In considering this it is required to take into account the character, reputation and financial standing not only of the applicant himself, but of any other person by


whom the club would be managed or for whose benefit it would be carried on. So that the backers, or the controlling interests, behind the applicant are thus brought under scrutiny, but only in consideration of the influence they are likely to exert over him in running the club.
I ought to mention one other point. There will be appeal from the Board's decisions to the Secretary of State. That was the desire of the Committee. But this does not mean that the powers can be exercised altogether without surveillance by the courts, which may be expected to intervene, if moved to do so, if it appears that the laws of natural justice have been disregarded. This will mean, at the least:, that if the Board were minded to refuse a certificate it would be expected, first, to give the applicant a general indication of the nature of the objections and an opportunity of answering them. It does not follow that it would have to reveal its sources of information, or that, in arriving at its decision, it would be bound by the same laws of evidence or proof as a court of law. While mitigated by the requirements of natural justice, the system will still remain essentially arbitrary.

Mr. Rees-Davies: On that point, will there be an opportunity, say, once a year, for the House to debate an annual report of the Gaming Board, or would there be some opportunity given for complaints of this kind to be ventilated? I believe that this would be a good alternative forum to protect the requirements of natural justice.

Mr. Callaghan: I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right. I do not relish these powers in one sense. Therefore, it is important that there should be an opportunity to debate the exercise of the Board's control in this matter. Although it is not for me to forecast how it will be done, clearly the presentation of an annual report by the Gaming Board would provide an opportunity for the House to arrange for a debate on issues of this kind which should be kept narrowly under scrutiny. This is why I am bringing out all the difficulties and the arbitrary nature of the powers for which I am now asking the House.
I have already said that the ingredients that the Board should identify are such matters as character, reputation and

financial standing. It will be for the Board to consider to what extent someone is a fit and proper person to be given the opportunity to apply to the justices for a licence.
The origin of these powers, and the desire of the Committee which was pressed upon the Government, lies in the special and peculiar nature of gaming and the consequences that can flow from it if undesirable or, indeed, criminal elements should secure a foothold in gaming. For that reason the Committee was anxious to press these powers on the Government. Therefore, I now introduce these Amendments.

Mr. Buck: The dispute among many people who have considered gaming in detail is not that it is not right to have powers such as these, but, as the Churches Committee on Gambling said, whether they should not go further and have licences issued by the Gaming Board. The arguments are fairly evenly balanced. It is right that the Gaming Board should have the power of veto over an applicant for the privilege of carrying on a gaming establishment, because it is likely to be a fairly profitable privilege.
Let there be no mistake about it. We are creating for gaming a Board which will be somewhat akin to the Jockey Club, but more powerful because, provided we give the Bill its Third Reading today, as seems likely, and it goes through another place, the Board will have the power of Statute behind it in a way which the Jockey Club has not. Therefore, we are creating a powerful body to control and organise gaming, which I think is right, for the reasons stated by the Home Secretary which were carefully considered in Committee.
The Home Secretary, in his Second reading speech, described the Board as being the pivot of this legislation. With respect, it was not a very strong pivot as originally devised. It is now. Indeed, it will have very considerable powers. As has been said, before an applicant can go to the justices he will have to seek the approval of the Board. Within the limits of natural justice, the Board will have the power to say, " No, you shall not." It will not have to state its reasons. It will have the power to turn an applicant down because of the unsuitability


of his background or for any of the reasons set out in the Clause.
I need hardly say more. We welcome this Amendment. We think that it is right. These are considerable powers to be conferring on an authority, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees Davies), in his intervention, was right to suggest that we should have the matter under scrutiny annually through a report from the Board. I understood that that was provided for, but perhaps it was merely that we had a similar assurance in Committee.
7.30 p.m.
I have tried to go through the timetable delineated by the right hon. Gentleman, and it seems satisfactory. Is it the case that the position of existing clubs is fully safeguarded until they have had an opportunity to go through all the stages? I find it a little difficult to pick that out from the centre of the Bill, but I understand that their position is fully preserved until they have had an opportunity of appearing before the Board, having their applications considered by the Board, and then in due course by the justices.
I understand that their position is safeguarded, but others have expressed concern about whether that is so, and I should like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no difficulty on that score.

Mr. Rees-Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) has dealt with a number of points, but there are still a few that require fairly careful investigation. First, what preparation will be made to ensure that there is close co-operation between the police and the new Board to secure adequate and proper investigation? I was much concerned about this aspect of the matter originally when I was seeking advice before presenting my Bill last September to set up what I thought would be a gaming board. I took the advice of some inspectors of police. They told me that their information came from all quarters, and that it was confidential, but that some of the information was suspect. It came from informers or undesirable types.
Allowing for the fact that the Home Secretary moves quickly, if he gets the

Board constituted on the ground by September he will have moved very quickly indeed. Having set it up with its staff, it will then have to get in touch with the police. The police will have to make their investigations and then report. Will there be a separate department of New Scotland Yard in charge of this task? In recent years quite a number of us have often criticised the police for not having separate departments, such as a gaming squad, a jewel squad, and so on. Both my hon. Friend and I have criticised the police on that score, and I am sure that a separate squad will be needed to carry out this task.
Although there will be arbitrary power to refuse an application, I hope that before an applicant is refused permission without his knowledge he will have an opportunity to make representations in writing to the Board in respect of his financial standing, or his integrity, even though the Board will not be required to give any reason for its ultimate decision.
Those are the matters which one has to investigate, because we are now using a system which involves, first, the Gaming Board, and later the licensing authority. I am still rather inclined to the view that it might have been better not to have involved licensing justices in this matter, but I concede that there are arguments to the contrary. I am not sure that I am not wrong, and that the Government are right. One day one takes one view, and another day one takes another. It was perhaps a little strange that I should have come down in favour of a Gaming Board only, having regard to past experience in cases of this kind, but many of us who are lawyers came to the view that it should be wholly arbitrary.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider what I have said. I hope that if he errs he will do so in favour of giving the Board sufficient time to make all the proper investigations which will be necessary before it can arrive at its decision. I think that next May is the earliest date by which one can hope to get a clear assessment of the position, but I should like an assurance that when the Bill is passed, say, some time in August, or at the convenience of the Home Secretary, he will announce to


the Press the timetable which he is adopting so that those who are in the position of wishing to apply are neither too early nor too late.

Mr. Callaghan: Perhaps I can reply to the points which have been raised. In reply to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), I confirm that there will be no difficulty about the continuing operation of existing clubs. The procedure will not be introduced until the machinery is complete.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) asked one or two questions. There has been a recent management investigation into the organisation of New Scotland Yard. It has been extremely valuable, and the present Commissioner, when he was Deputy Commissioner, was in charge both of initiating this and translating it into action.
I do not regard it as my responsibility to organise New Scotland Yard. That is the Commissioner's responsibility, and he must dispose of his people in the way that he thinks best. I take note of what has been said by the hon. Gentleman, and in the light of that I shall discuss the matter with the Commissioner to find out how he thinks these operations should be organised. There are now special officers who are concerned with this matter. I shall discuss with the Commissioner what formal organisation is needed, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to understand that I do not regard it as my responsibility to force a particular kind of organisation on the Commissioner.
I agree that there is a difficulty about the timetable. That is why I sought some information which I have now given to the House. I think that we should give information as soon as we can once the Board has been set up and has had a chance of considering it. It will be for the Board to announce a timetable, and I shall tell the Board that it is the view of the House that it should go ahead with it as quickly as it can.

Mr. Bmck: Mr. Bmck rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak again, but he may intervene before the Minister resumes his seat.

Mr. Callaghan: I had not quite sat down.

Mr. Speaker: Very well.

Mr. Buck: I have had an opportunity of studying the timetable in outline, and we understand from other sources as well that it is likely to be satisfactory.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 39, in line 24, at end insert:
'bingo club licence' means a licence under this Act granted in respect of any premises subject to restrictions under paragraph 23 of this Schedule whereby gaming to which Part II of this Act applies on those premises is limited to the playing of bingo.

No. 40, in page 43, line 39, at end insert:

Certificate of consent for purposes of application for licence

3.—(1) An application for the grant of a licence under this Act in respect of any premises shall be of no effect unless—

(a)the Board have issued to the applicant a certificate consenting to his applying for such a licence in respect of those premises, and that certificate is for the time being in force and the application is made within the period specified in the certificate, and
(b)where the certificate is limited to a bingo club licence, the application is for the grant of a bingo club licence in respect of those premises.

(2) In the following provisions of this Schedule any reference to an application for the grant of a licence under this Act shall be construed as not including any application which by virtue of the preceding sub-paragraph is of no effect.
4.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect with respect to any application for a certificate of consent (in this paragraph referred to as a " consent application ") for the purposes of an application for the grant of a licence under this Act (in this paragraph referred to, in relation to a consent application, as " the relevant licence application ")
(2)Any consent application shall be made to the Board by the person proposing to make the relevant licence application, and shall—

(a)specify the premises in respect of which the relevant licence application is proposed to be made, and
(b)state whether the relevant licence application will be for the grant of a bingo club licence or for a licence under this Act other than a bingo club licence.

(3)The Board shall not (unless in any particular case they think fit to do so) be required to entertain a consent application unless it is made before whichever is the later of the following, that is to say—



(a)
the end of the period of three months beginning with the date appointed under section 52(3) of this Act for the purposes of this paragraph, and
(b)the end of the month of October in the year immediately preceding the year in which the relevant licence application is proposed to be made.

(4)The Board shall not issue a certificate on a consent application if it appears to the Board that the applicant—

(a)not being a body corporate, is under twenty-one years of age, or
(b)not being a body corporate, is not resident in Great Britain or was not so resident throughout the period of six months immediately preceding the date on which the application was made, or
(c)being a body corporate, is not incorporated in Great Britain.


(5)Subject to sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph, in determining whether to issue to an applicant a certificate consenting to his applying for the grant of a licence under this Act in respect of any premises, the Board shall have regard only to the question whether, in their opinion, in view of the character, reputation and financial standing—

(a)of the applicant, and
(b)of any person (other than the applicant) by whom, if a licence were granted on the relevant licence application, the club to which the consent application relates would be managed, or for whose benefit, if a licence were so granted, that club would be carried on,

the applicant is likely to be capable of, and diligent in, securing that the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under it will be complied with, that gaming on those premises will be fairly and properly conducted, and that the premises will be conducted without disorder or disturbance.

(6) If on a consent application made to the Board in respect of any premises the Board issue to the applicant a certificate consenting to his applying for the grant of a licence under this Act in respect of those premises, the certificate shall—

(a)specify the applicant and those premises;
(b)specify a period within which the relevant licence application can be made; and
(c)state whether the consent is or is not limited to a bingo club licence.

No. 41, in page 44, line 3, at end insert:
'and shall be accompanied by a copy of the certificate of consent issued by the Board for the purposes of that application'.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 105, in page 44, line 16, after 'shall', insert:
' specify the name of the applicant, the name of the club and the location of the relevant

premises, shall indicate whether the application is for a bingo club licence or for a licence under this Act other than a bingo club licence, and shall'.
Paragraph 4 of the Schedule requires that a notice of application for a licence for a gaming club shall be published in a newspaper circulating in the licensing authority's area and sub-paragraph (4) provides that a like notice shall be displayed outside the entrance to the relevant premises and that it shall not include any matter which is not required, by the preceding provisions of the paragraph, to be included. This is to prevent the inclusion of promotional material.
The preceding provisions are silent about the nature of the essential particulars which the notice must contain and the Amendment would remedy this deficiency by specifying them as, first, the name of the applicant, second, the name of the club, third, the location of the premises and, fourth, a statement whether the application is or is not for a bingo club licence.

Mr. Timothy Kitson: I have a nasty feeling that when this is done, it will be an advertisement in a newspaper under the prohibition which we were discussing yesterday.

Mr. Morgan: I do not accept that. It merely specifies in detail what had already been provided for in the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 45, line 8, leave out from ' period' to ' in' in line 10 and insert:
'of six months beginning with the date appointed under section 52(3) of this Act for the purposes of this paragraph'.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 67.

Mr. Callaghan: This harks back to the Amendment which we discussed just now. Amendment No. 42 and No. 67 are linked, and deal with the timing of the licensing proceedings during the traditional period. Since I explained this in our original debate, perhaps I need not go through it again unless the House wishes.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buck: I beg to move Amendment No. 148, in page 46, line 19, after ' particulars', insert:
'(including particulars of any additions to or alteration of the relevant premises since the licence was granted)'.

Mr. Speaker: It would be convenient I think to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 149, in page 47, line 3, at end insert:
12. Where an application for the renewal of a licence under this Act contains particulars or additions or alterations carried out to the relevant premises, that application shall be treated as an application for the grant of a licence and the provisions of this Schedule which relate to the granting of a licence shall operate accordingly.

Mr. Buck: These Amendments raise a small point which I hope the Government will be able to accept or to deal with in another place. When a licence comes up for renewal, it will still be a renewal even if there have been substantial alterations to the premises. If the matter is considered merely as a renewal, the fire authorities and the police will not have to be informed. If it were regarded as a new application, they would have to be informed and could then be satisfied that the premises were satisfactory. This is a valid point. If substantial alterations are made it should be regarded as a new application. It may be thought appropriate for this to come under the scrutiny of the Board, but, as the Board considers the antecedents of persons rather than premises, this is not perhaps strictly necessary.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: We well understand the proper motives behind these two Amendments. No. 148 would require an application for renewal to contain particulars of any additions or alterations since the licence was last granted. Although it does not say so. I assume that it was intended to cover its last renewal as well. No. 149 would provide that, where there had been additions or alterations, the application should be treated as one for the grant of a new licence. The Amendments attempt no definition of the additions or alterations which might be thought significant enough to be considered. Even the most trivial would be caught.
However, the first Amendment is unnecessary, since all the appropriate

authorities, including the local authority, the fire authority and the licensing authority itself have rights of inspection prior to renewal. I have every confidence that these authorities would periodically examine the premises concerned before renewing the licence, so I have no doubt, since they have this right and any prevention of their doing so would be an offence, that they will be able to acquaint themselves with any structural changes and decide whether or not to object to the renewal.
Amendment No. 149 is both unnecessary and inappropriate. It is unnecessary because, under paragraph 19 of the Schedule, renewal can be refused on all the same grounds as can the grant of a licence, plus certain additional ones, and, therefore, inter alia, on the grounds of the unsuitability of the premises. It is inappropriate—now, more than ever— because grants of licences, as distinct from renewal, would require the full paraphernalia of certificates of consent by the Board.

Mr. Carlisle: I appreciate the point, but the trouble is that one has to give notice, under a grant, not only to the justices but also to the police, the fire authority, and the local authority. What is concerning the local authorities is that one does not have to notify them about a renewal and that therefore alterations could take place without their knowledge. I accept that the renewal can be refused on the ground that the premises are not suitable, but the authorities would not now have to be notified of those alterations.

Mr. Morgan: I accept the general principle which the hon. Gentleman puts forward, as I am sure that he accepts my point concerning the cumbersome and unnecessary procedure of putting an application, de novo, in the hands of the Board. Regulations can be made under paragraph 10 specifying the format of the application form which should be used in applying for a grant or renewal, and if that is set out so as to make it obligatory on the applicant to say whether or not alterations or additions have taken place, then the notice which is covered by the Amendments would have been given to the relevant authority.

Mr. Buck: The Under-Secretary has given away the first part of his case. He suggested that, under Amendment No. 148, trivia might have to be included in the applicaton, but paragraph 10(1) would, as amended, read:
… shall contain such particulars (including particulars of any additions to or alteration of the relevant premises since the licence was granted), as may be prescribed.
The regulations would prescribe only alterations involving additions of certain cubic areas. As the Under-Secretary said, his criticism on the ground of trivia falls to the ground.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The only difference between us is that, as the Amendment now stands, there is no definition of what amounts to an addition or alteration. If regulations are made, they presumably would specify in greater detail exactly what would be an alteration or an addition. Therefore, the trivia would not be included there. That is the narrow difference between us.

Mr. Buck: It is such a narrow difference that it is hardly worth pursuing. I do not think the point remains. It will be for the Board to recommend what regulations shall be made to do precisely what the Under-Secretary wants, namely, that there shall be within a regulation a definition of the nature of the alterations. He need not pursue the matter further. The point is causing concern for the reasons I gave. I accept that there is a general duty on fire authorities, police authorities and local authorities to keep these matters under review. My point that major alterations ought to be brought specifically to their attention is still valid, but, in view of the assurances that have been given by the Under-Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 48, leave out lines 32 to 36.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment the House can also consider Amendment No. 57.

Mr. Morgan: Under paragraph 17(3) of Schedule 2, the licensing authority is required to provide an applicant for a licence, at his request, with a statement of any advice given to the authority by the Board on the subject of the

demand for gaming facilities which the authority intends to take into account in deciding the application. Amendment No. 43 deletes this provision in order that it may be reimposed, by Amendment No. 57, in a wider context, embracing advice given by the Board in respect of other matters than demand, or bearing on the restrictions that may be attached to a licence as well as on the question whether it should be granted or renewed. The substituted provision also recognises that the advice given by the Board may be as relevant to renewals as to grants of first instance, and should, therefore, be made producible in that connection as well.
It was argued in Committee that the clerk to the authority should himself take the initiative in providing applicants with these statements, whether these were requested or not, but this suggestion was resisted. The Board is unlikely to be perpetually changing the nature of its advice, and it is likely that its import will often be well enough known to the applicant. There is no point in putting the clerk to the trouble and expense of sending out information which is not needed or not asked for. We do not expect the applicants in this highly commercialised field to be so innocent as to be unaware of the rights which the Bill bestows upon them.

Mr. Buck: We wondered whether there should not be an absolute duty for this information to be given at once to the applicant as of right, rather than that the applicant should apply for it. The arguments which have been put forward by the Under-Secretary carry weight, especially as I have many friends who are clerks to magistrates' courts, and I am reluctant to see friends of mine lumbered with the job of giving out information which in some cases may not be gratefully received.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 48, line 41, leave out 'having regard to the' and insert:
'the relevant premises are unsuitable by reason of their'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment the House can also consider Amendment No. 45.

Mr. Callaghan: These Amendments are paving Amendments to the next one,


Amendment No. 46, and I have nothing to say on them.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 45, in page 48, line 42, leave out from ' location ' to end of line 43.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 49, line 8, at end insert:
(2) In determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether the relevant premises are unsuitable by reason of any matter mentioned in sub-paragraph (l)(a) of this paragraph, the licensing authority shall take into account any advice given to them by the Board with respect to that matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment the House can also consider Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53.

Mr. Callaghan: Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53 are all consequential on Amendment No. 46. The Amendments require the justices, in considering a grant or renewal of a licence, to take account of any advice which the Gaming Board may give to them about the suitability of the premises. At present under paragraph 17(1) the Board is authorised to give advice only on the extent of the demand on the part of the prospective players. In the terms of paragraph 18(a), with the Amendments, the matters to be taken into account in considering whether premises are suitable are their layout, their character, their condition and their location. The Board will build up general experience over a period, and will have valuable advice to give, I trust, to local justices on the proper layout and character of gaming rooms. It is probably in respect of the location of premises that the right to advise, and the obligation of the justices to take account of the advice, should be particularly valuable. I commend the Amendments to the House.

Mr. Carlisle: The Home Secretary is right that this is another example where we have tightened up the Bill both in Committee and on Report. We now find that there are certain things on which the Board will have to give consent, and certain additional things on which they will be able to give advice. It appears that they are now to advise also on the premises, and I believe this is right. When the Bill comes into operation the

Home Office may have to reconsider its ideas on the number of people employed by the Board. There may be a substantial increase in their work if they are to examine the premises.

Mr. Callaghan: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not say that too loudly; the Chancellor of the Exchequer might hear. I am under rigid limitations as to the number of staff who can be engaged. I do not think many people will be needed. In any case, we must keep the number down as far as we can.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 49, line 24, at end insert—
(e) that, while the licence has been in force, appropriate precautions against the danger of fire have not been observed, or have been insufficiently observed, in the use of the relevant premises.
The Amendment deals with a weakness which existed in the Second Schedule. While structural precautions, such as the provision of fire exits, are a matter for the justices to take into account in considering the suitability of premises for the grant or renewal of a licence under paragraph 18(a), and while grant or renewal may be refused on the grounds that the appropriate fire authority inter alia has been refused reasonable facilities to inspect the premises under paragraph 18(d), there is no provision which would enable a renewal to be refused because of failure to observe day-to-day precautions. Thus, the premises may have ample means of escape from fire, but these may be allowed to become obstructed. The Amendment seeks to cure this defect.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies: This will not do. Unfortunately, I did not notice it sooner, otherwise I would have tabled an Amendment to it.
If the Minister looks at paragraph 19, he will see that that deals with the striking off of four classes of offender. The first is for convictions in respect of contraventions of the regulations. The second is for creating disturbance or disorder. The third is for dishonest conduct in gaming. The fourth is for allowing the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose or as a resort of criminals or prostitutes.
It is now proposed to add as a further ground for strike-off that a person has not observed or sufficiently observed the fire precautions, which is a totally different matter altogether. Incidentally, it occurs to me to ask why the expression "insufficiently observed " is proposed to be adopted. Either the precautions are observed or they are not.
Paragraph 18(a) deals nowhere with fire. It says:
'… having regard to the lay-out, character, condition or location of the relevant premises, those premises are not suitable for use as club premises for the purpose of gaming".
There is no mention of fire there. Fire precautions, after all, are covered by building Hyelaws. The question whether the character or layout of premises for gaming is suitable is quite different from whether fire precautions are observed. The Minister will see that, when premises are passed as being suitable, there is nothing to indicate that they have to be suitable from the point of view of fire risk for the purposes of the Act. Someone in the Home Office appears to think that it should go in the Act, but it does not have to go in at all. One cannot have premises unless they are suitable from the point of view of fire risk.
I am sorry that I did not notice the point before, otherwise I should have tabled an Amendment putting the position to rights. However, I ask that the matter should receive consideration hereafter.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The hon. Gentleman ended by saying that one cannot have a licence for premises unless they are suitable from the point of view of fire risk. Earlier, he said that paragraph 18(a) did not apply to fire. I agree that it does not apply to fire specifically, but its very wording encompasses dangers by fire, as it does many other factors.
I would point out to him that paragraph 19 is only permissive in the powers that it gives to licensing justices. It says:
The licensing authority may refuse to renew a licence under this Act".
It does not say that they must.
I appreciate that safeguarding from the perils of fire is in a different category from anything contained in sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). Nevertheless, when it comes to evaluation, I would not

say that the matters of social morality contained in those four sub-paragraphs are more important that the protection of human life.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am sure that we have all had cases in our constituencies where a fire officer has thought that not enough has been done, the individual concerned has disagreed violently, and there has had to be a proper investigation. This Bill is not the proper place in which to incorporate the provision for striking off people who fail to observe the necessary fire precautions. The paragraph is concerned with reprehensible conduct. There is abundant power elsewhere to ensure that fire precautions are properly observed. All club premises are sufficiently controlled from the point of view of fire risk without including provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: When considering matters which licensing justices should take into account in deciding whether or not they should cancel a licence, inevitably certain considerations will appear which are incongruous in other considerations. I am not arguing the congruity of this provision. What I am arguing is its relevance in the general context.
I also maintain that there is ample precedent in Acts dealing with public places where a licence can be forfeited if fire precautions have not been observed. Although these places are not technically public places, they are frequented by a great number of people. In view of that, I maintain that it is proper and necessary for this Amendment to be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 49, line 24, at end insert:
(2)The licensing authority may also refuse to renew a licence under this Act on the grounds that, within the period of twelve months ending with the date on which the licensing authority consider the application for renewal of the licence, a notice under paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 to this Act has been served on a person stating that a relevant certificate issued in respect of him under section 19 of this Act is revoked as from the end of a period specified in that notice.
(3)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph a certificate issued in respect of a person under section 19 of this Act shall be taken to have been a relevant certificate


if it was a certificate certifying that he had been approved by the Board under that section—

(a) in respect of the performance on the relevant premises of a function which, at the time when the notice referred to in that sub-paragraph was served, he was authorised or required to perform on those premises in pursuance of a service agreement which was then in force, or
(b) in respect of his acting in relation to premises in a capacity in which, at the time when that notice was served, he was acting, or was authorised or required to act, in relation to those premises.

(4) In this paragraph 'service agreement' has the same meaning as in section 19 of this Act.
The new sub-paragraphs inserted into paragraph 19 by this Amendment empower a licensing authority to refuse the renewal of a licence, if, during the preceding 12 months, a person performing on the premises the functions of a gaming operative or acting there in the capacity of gaming manager, organiser or supervisor, has had notice served on him by the Gaming Board under Schedule 5 of the Act that a certificate of approval granted to him under Clause 19 is to be withdrawn.
When the Board has withdrawn an employee's certificate of approval at a time when he is still employed by the club, it is desirable that the justices should have power to refuse to renew the licence of the club where he was employed. I stress that they should have power to do so if they see fit. Clearly, in some cases, the grounds for the revocation of the certificate may not implicate the licensee in any failure to exercise due supervision of the staff. Likewise, no doubt, there are cases where a number of certificates have had to be revoked, where the effect must be to raise the question whether the licence should be removed. The Amendment allows the justices so to deal with the matter.

Mr. Buck: It seems right that the justices should be armed with this residual power. However, it must be made clear that there is nothing obligatory about it. This will be a fact which they can take into account. Obviously it is appropriate as being the sort of information to which the justices should give attention. The fact that a croupier, say, has had his operator's licence withdrawn during the period of the licence should

put the justices on guard. If, after full investigation, they find that there was some degree of culpability concerned with the operation of the premises in question, it is right that they should not have to renew the licence. It must be emphasised, however, that we are here dealing with premises rather than with persons, in view of earlier Amendments to the appropriate Clauses in the main part of the Bill to which we agreed yesterday.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 49, line 27, leave out from beginning to 'such' in line 30 and insert ' made under section 23 of this Act'.
This Amendment is consequential on those made to Clause 23 whereby the powers of a court to disqualify for an offence under the Bill are confined to disqualification of the premises.

Amendment agreed to.

Further A mendment made: No. 50, leave out lines 32 to 40.

No. 51, in line 45, leave out '18(a)' and insert '18(l)(a)'.

No. 52, in line 46, after 'whether', insert ' the relevant premises are unsuitable' and No. 53, in line 46, leave out from 'location' to 'and' in line 48.— [Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 50, line 19, leave out from beginning to 'may' in line 20.
Paragraph 23(1) empowers the licensing authority when granting or renewing a licence to impose restrictions on the gaming area of the premises or on the games to be played there, but only where this appears to it expedient having regard to its findings under paragraph 16 as to the demand for the facilities. The Amendment removes that limitation which might otherwise have prevented the grant of a licence limited to bingo, even though the applicant was asking for suoh a licence.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 50, leave out lines 27 to 33.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 56.

Mr. Callaghan: Paragraph 23(2) of the Schedule, as it stands, requires the licensing authority, in deciding whether to impose restrictions under paragraph 23(1), that is, on the gaming area of the premises or on the games to be played there, to take into account any advice given to them by the Board under paragraph 17(1), dealt with by an earlier Amendment.
These Amendments require that, additionally, the authority shall take account of any advice proffered by the Board as to restrictions limiting the purposes other than gaming for which the premises may be used under paragraph 23(3).
Let me give an example. We discussed yesterday the prospect of my making regulations after I had advice from the Gaming Board on the cabaret-cum-gaming clubs. If I decided not to lay regulations before the House on this it would still be possible under this Amendment for the Board to advise the licensing authority so to do in any particular case. This, therefore, might be a way of narrowing down what might otherwise be a broad determination and I think gives the maximum flexibility in determining how this should be done. That is basically the meaning of the Amendment.

Mr. Buck: The Home Secretary has raised an interesting point which we dealt with pretty fully yesterday. He has in his heart of hearts the sentiment he expressed on Second Reading that he does not very much like the idea of the combination of gaming and other activities of an entirely innocent character such as dancing, drinking and dining. Originally the Home Secretary was out to ban this utterly but we have moved him along the road. We have the view that establishments are better when there is a combination.
The Home Secretary has, as he pointed out, armed himself and others at every turn with powers to deal with this problem, if he regards it as a problem. Licensing justices can so organise the licence and put limitations on a licence to limit there being anything but roulette or other gaming, eliminating other pleasant facilities such as dining rooms, dancing and discotheques. They can do it and he can do it through regulation. It is rather hard that anybody should be able to do it. They should in properly regulated premises be allowed to conduct

a combination of these activities. We have no objection to the licensing justices having this power and therefore do not intend to divide the House on this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: Amendment No. 56 in page 50, line 45, at end insert:

(5) In determining whether to impose any restrictions under this paragraph, the licensing authority shall take into account any advice given to them by the Board (whether given for the purposes of this paragraph or in pursuance of paragraph 17 of this Schedule), as well as any representations which, at the time when the application is being considered by the licensing authority, are made to the authority by or on behalf of the Board or any other person entitled to be heard on the consideration of the application.

No. 57, in page 50, line 51, at end insert:

Notification of advice given by Board

25. The Clerk to the licensing authority shall at the request of any applicant for the grant or renewal of a licence under this Act, furnish him with a statement setting out any advice given to the licensing authority by the Board which the licensing authority propose to take into account in determining the application.— [Mr. Callaghan.]

Mr. Cafllaghan: I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 53, line 47, at end insert:

Revocation by Board of certificate of consent

31.—(1) Where under the preceding provisions of this Schedule the Board have issued to a person a certificate of consent to his applying for a licence under this Act in respect of any premises, then, subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, the Board may at any time revoke that certificate, whether before that time—

(a) the holder of the certificate has applied for a licence under this Act in respect of those premises, or 
(b) in pursuance of such an application, the licensing authority have granted him such a licence, 

or not.
(2) Subject to the next following sub-paragraph, the Board shall not revoke a certificate of consent in respect of any premises at any time unless it appears to them—

(a) that, if the holder of the certificate were then applying for such a certificate under paragraph 4 of this Schedule, the Board would be precluded by sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph from issuing such a certificate to him, or
(b) that the matters stated in the application on which the certificate was issued were false in a material particular, or


(c) that, since the certificate was issued, a licence: under this Act held by the holder of the certificate (whether in respect of the same or different premises) has been cancelled by virtue of a disqualification order made under section 23 of this Act or under this Schedule or in the exercise of the powers conferred on the licensing authority or the court by the following provisions of this Schedule.

(3) Where the holder of a certificate of consent in respect of any premises has in pursuance of the certificate applied for the grant of a licence under this Act in respect of those premises, and such a licence has been granted and is for the time being in force, the Board may revoke the certificate at any time if it appears to them—

(a) that, in relation to the conduct of the premises or the conduct of gaming on those premises, effective control is beine exercised by a person other than the holder of the certificate, and
(b) that the other person in question, in view of his character and reputation, is not a person to whom, if he were then applying for a certificate of consent under the preceding provisions of this Schedule, the Board would issue such a certificate.

(4)Where the Board determine to revoke a certificate of consent by virtue of this paragraph they shall serve a notice on the holder of the certificate stating that the certificate is revoked as from the end of the period of eight weeks from the date of service of the notice; and the revocation shall take effect at the end of that period, unless before the end of that period the Board have served on the holder of the certificate a further notice stating that they have rescinded their decision to revoke the certificate.
(5)Where the Board serve any such notice as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph they shall send a copy of the notice to the clerk to the licensing authority, to the appropriate officer of police and to the appropriate collector of duty.
(6)On the revocation by virtue of this paragraph of a certificate of consent in respect of any premises, any licence under this Act in respect of those premises which—

(a) specifies that certificate as being the certificate in pursuance of which the application for the licence was made, and
(b) is in force at the time when the revocation of the certificate takes effect,

shall thereupon cease to have effect.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also discuss the proposed Amendments to the Amendment, in line 32, at end add:
(c) that the gaming on those premises is not being fairly and properly conducted.
In line 35, leave out 'eight' and insert 'four'.
And Amendment No. 66, in page 57, line 39, after 'whether', insert:

'in consequence of the revocation of a certificate of consent or'.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: Although the hon. Gentleman thinks that I want to prevent a lot of things happening which he approves of, I hope that he will concede that I am doing my best to maintain the liberty and freedom of the subject in these matters. I am proposing here, in relation to the cancellation of licences, something whereby I am trying to safeguard the legitimate interests of licence-holders. Indeed, on a more factitious occasion I would say I am showing myself as being the true friend of liberty as opposed to hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to the time the licence can be taken away. I take this responsibility seriously, and I do not want the House to push me into doing things which I think are going too far in an arbitrary direction.
The discretion of the Board to withdraw a certificate of consent is more closely circumscribed than the discretion given them to refuse an application for a certificate in the first place. A power for the Board to revoke a certificate on the grounds that it no longer believes the applicant himself to be trustworthy would be too far-reaching, since it could be invoked, for instance, whenever the Board considered that any of the conditions of the licence had been broken, or that there had been unfair play, or that the premises had been conducted in a disorderly way, or that they had become a resort of criminals or prostitutes.
These are all grounds on which the justices will be entitled to refuse renewal of a licence or to cancel it, and which could satisfactorily be dealt with at a hearing in open court. If the Board could decide these issues at its sole discretion this would encroach on the proper jurisdiction of the courts, and would leave the licence-holder—and all his employees —in constant peril of arbitrary process. It would also involve a substantial transfer of responsibilities of enforcement from the police to the Board's inspectors, who could not be recruited in sufficient number properly to assume them.
The general principle adopted in this paragraph, therefore, is that once a certificate of consent has been given, and even if experience should suggest that


the Board's initial judgment of the applicant has been faulty, it may be withdrawn only in certain defined circumstances, leaving—for the rest—any un-trustworthiness on the part of the licensee to be exposed in proceedings before the courts or justices.
The circumstances in which a certificate may be withdrawn are broadly those (a) in which it is found to have been issued on misinformation; or (b) following cancellation of a licence by a court or the justices; or (c) in which the licensee has come under the control of influences —financial or otherwise—which the Board considers to be untrustworthy.
Various sub-paragraphs provide for the circumstances in which the certificate can be revoked. Paragraph (2) deals with the circumstances I have outlined. Sub-paragraph (3) empowers the Board to revoke a certificate of consent where it appears to it that effective control over a licensed establishment is being exercised by someone, other than the certificate-holder, whose character or reputation is such that were he himself to apply for a certificate the Board would not be prepared to issue one.
As regards the timing revocation, I do not want to anticipate the hon. Gentleman's argument, but in deciding the time as provided in sub-paragraph (4) we propose to give eight weeks. I think that we ought to give the certificate-holder an opportunity to remove the cause for complaint if we can, for example, by rearranging his financial affairs so as to rid himself of undesirable influences, to give proper notice to his staff, and perhaps negotiate for the transfer of the licence to somebody else. Four weeks is a little too short if he has the employment of many people in his hands. I do not think that eight weeks is too long. I know that there is an Amendment down for four weeks, but I should need a lot of convincing that this time was correct. However, I do not think that there is much between us in the four and the eight weeks. I think that eight is reasonable.

Mr. Buck: The Home Secretary has explained the purpose of the Amendment—it is virtually a new Clause—and we agree that it is desirable. It gives very considerable powers indeed to the

Gaming Board, although we have tabled Amendments to provide even more extensive powers for the revocation by the Board of a certificate of consent. We would arm the Board with power to revoke a certificate where gaming on premises is not being fairly and properly conducted. This, as the right hon. Gentleman said, would go further than his Amendment.
The right hon. Gentleman anticipated my argument and explained that in a case involving dishonesty or maladministration by an operator, the matter would be brought before the courts and determined there. It is difficult to reconcile his argument to that effect with the arguments that have been adduced by the Government concerning croupiers. The purpose of an Amendment which we discussed yesterday relating to croupiers was to deal with what might not be a justiciable issue as to whether or not there had been criminal conduct. That was the reason for seeking to remove the right of appeal for a croupier.
Why should not the same apply to the owner of a casino, who may be able to operate in a way which smacks of chicanery and which indicates that cheating has occurred? It may be difficult, perhaps impossible, to prove that beyond a doubt based on reason in court. Would it not be right, therefore, to arm the Board with power to revoke a licence where it takes the view that gaming has not been fairly and properly conducted?
This brings us to the question of enforcement. We will have a relatively small inspectorate and we gather that the police will be working in co-operation with it. As I said on Second Reading, and as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) explained, we need a gaming squad. Be that as it may, the Bill will work only if there is a sufficient degree of co-operation between licensed operators of casinos and the staff of the Board. Casino operators will be more likely to put their house in order if they know that the Board has extensive powers, even to the point of putting them out of business. If gaming is not being fairly and properly conducted, the Board should be empowered to act in a severe fashion.
I agree that there should be a waiting period during which the operator may


put his house in order. The Home Secretary has suggested a waiting time of eight weeks. Although we suggested four weeks, the right hon. Gentleman is probably right on this occasion. But the waiting time should not be too long, remembering that if there is a change of ownership or if a casino operator has been told to mend his ways he should be prepared to take prompt action.
Perhaps additional power is required by the Board to stop a casino from operating. The position concerning an offence under Clause 23 covers this to some extent, but we are here dealing with an extraordinary sphere of activity. People may move in, take over an establishment and start operating a crooked game.
The Board must be armed to act quickly and to react with severity if cheating is taking place. That is the purpose: of our proposal and I hope that the Home Secretary will, between now and the Bill reaching another place, look into the matter further and consider arming the Board with additional powers, either

Mr. Kitson: I cannot agree with either my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) or the Home Secretary on this point. The only method of control found satisfactory in America has been to give the gaming boards in, for example, Nevada, the right to close a club within 24 hours. I believe that we will find this power necessary for our Gaming Board. After all, if a club is operating a crooked roulette wheel and if it is discovered by one of the Board's inspectors, he should, after reporting the matter to the Board, have power to close the club while inquiries are made, This is done in Nevada, Puerto Rico and also in France.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Although my hon. Friend refers to the power in some countries to close clubs for 24 hours, I believe that it is more in the nature of a temporary suspension. Later, it is possible for clubs to be reopened.

Mr. Kitson: "Temporary suspension" is the correct phrase and I believe that we will need this power.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester pointed out, if a club knows that a possible revocation is hanging over its head, it should put its house in

order promptly. A waiting time of eight weeks is too long and a club which is running a crooked wheel or a crooked game of baccarat with marked cards could make a killing in eight weeks, particularly in the holiday season. We are by the Bill drastically reducing the number of gaming clubs. I hope that even in large cities there will be only one such club. I trust that the Home Secretary will give further thought to the matter because he is being far too generous in this provision to the casinos.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: The Board will require considerable information if it is to fulfil the conditions which the Home Secretary had in mind. It seems inevitable that it will require access to records which are normally regarded as confidential to all except the police. Without wishing to give the impression of looking a gift horse in the mouth—since most of the time my hon. Friends and I have been asking for the sort of powers which the right hon. Gentleman is introducing—we must strike a balance.
I am not sure of the relationship which the Board will have with the police; whether there will be a complete exchange in matters of confidentiality relating to all information which the police may have and which may be relevant to the Board's operations. I do not see how the Board can act in the way that is envisaged here without access to criminal records. I think that they have to know things which normally nobody outside the police ought to know.
8.30 p.m.
There is one further complication. I also believe that the Board will find it impossible to work without very close relationships with the proprietors, at least of the most respectable clubs. In a sense this is another relationship which the Board has to establish. I believe that the Home Secretary accepts that unless it is really working with those proprietors who want to keep their clubs straight it will not get the information that it should have. If we put these two things together we begin to see there may be difficulties—and I do not want to exaggerate. If, on the one hand, the Board must have access to records which nobody else would see and, on the other, must deal on a mutually confidential


basis with the proprietors of clubs it feels it can trust, then we open up here a new field.
I do not want to anticipate difficulties, but I see that difficulties could arise. If the Home Secretary feels able to do so I would like him to tell us how far he feels that the Board has to work with the police. If in a year or two's time we get on to a computer record which enables the police to keep exact statistics and get instant retrieval of information on individuals, it would be interesting to know how much of that the Board might be able to see. That is the kind of thing we should be anticipating now.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I follow all that my right hon. Friend has said. In my earlier observations I assumed that the Board would have power to be able to see all records and fingerprints, and more important than that, would have a direct liaison officer with Interpol; because we must have all the information from abroad. There are at present in this country a number of croupiers who have been struck off in France and are not permitted to operate there. They are in this city at present.
There are also a number of international gamblers who would not be permitted to gamble in any casino in Europe or America who are gambling in this country at present. Consequently, we have here a situation in which we will need the co-operation of an international police as well as our own. I have assumed we would have these powers.

Mr. Deedes: My hon. Friend says he assumes this would have to be so. That is rather an alarming assumption.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I had raised earlier the question which my right hon. Friend has raised in probing this matter, that of close liaison with the police; and at no time has anyone suggested that the Board would not have this relevant information. Personally, I take the view that this particular schedule as set out is right and that on revocation there should be a period of eight weeks, because a person will need all that time before ultimately losing the licence. But I said yesterday on Schedule 2—and probably at the time I did not make it clear—that it seemed to me to be absolutely essential, as my

hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) has rightly said, that there must be power of suspension at the time.
If we find out that on a particular occasion there is cheating going on in a club then one recognises that leads to immediate disorder and if it turns out that a person knows he has been cheated it can often lead to assault or behaviour of that kind. In those circumstances, as the police and the inspector have right of entry, no doubt the police will turn up at the club. If the persons are rejected that is quite insufficient for most people, because if there is cheating in a club by the croupier the manager, no doubt, will sack him on the spot and let him take the blame, but the probability is that someone is in liaison with that croupier.
If cheating is going on at poker it usually takes the dealer as well as a person in the game to turn it into a crooked game. If one is operating at chemin de fer it means that not only the croupier, but someone planted in the game, usually at No. 5 immediately opposite, is concerned. It is usually dealt with through a hearing device which enables them to hear with much greater accuracy the riffling of the cards.
I, or any person who is a card player, playing in a club in which cheating is found, would be quite right in believing that the club was a crooked club, not merely that the person engaged in it was cheating, unless it arose between two quite separate players at, say, a bridge club. That is why we believe that power of temporary suspension should be added. At the same time, I entirely agree with the Home Secretary that if that is to be done it can not only lead to substantial financial loss but to rumour going around that the police had closed the club and, if the club gets a bad reputation, people will not go there. That power should be written into the Bill in another place, but it is not affected by consideration of this Schedule.

Mr. Kitson: No club could be even temporarily suspended unless it were found to be actually cheating in a very sophisticated fashion.

Mr. Rees-Davies: My hon. Friend is quite right. It has to be a clear case.
That will make it difficult for the Parliamentary draftsman to make this provision. It will mean devising a Clause in another place to deal with the situation where there is reasonable cause to believe that cheating has taken place and that the Board or the police should have power to make a closing order. I am sorry that this has come up at this late stage. I would have proposed an Amendment in Committee if at that time I had not been voiceless and incapable of attending. Some of the noble Lords in another place, with wide experience, might be very usefully employed when they deal with the Bill.

Mr. Callaghan: This has been a very useful debate. I am much obliged for the experience of the hon. Members for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) and Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees Davies), both of whom always impress me by their knowledge of these matters, although I am sure that they have always been on the right side of the law.
Coming straight to the law of temporary suspension, I should have thought, but I do not speak with the great experience of the hon. Members, that if it was known that a club was cheating it would hardly be likely to make a killing over the following eight weeks of the holiday season. Is anyone to be deliberately fleeced by a club which is known to be cheating?

Mr. Kitson: They would not know. It would be a very clever inspector who found a club cheating, let alone members of the general public going there to play a game, unless a notice was to be put up at the entrance saying, "This club is running a crooked game."

Mr. Callaghan: That is exactly what I was thinking would happen. If it is known, and we must assume that it is, the Gaming Board will say, "We find that you are cheating. This information will soon be made public"—presumably by the Board. Then the "Society for the Protection of Gamers" will parade up and down in front of the entrance with placards saying, "Do not come here. They fleece you". I should have thought that that would happen, but perhaps I am wrong.
I think that there is a case for considering again the powers of temporary suspension. I can see that it is obviously

a clean way of doing it and between now and the Bill's going to another place I shall see whether this should be done. But I cannot think that a club found and known to be cheating will get any clientele.

Mr. Buck: The right hon. Gentleman would be surprised.

Mr. Callaghan: In that case, there must be one born every minute. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is."] Then thank goodness I never did it!
I turn to the point of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who had a lot of experience of the position of the police in his former Ministerial office. No detailed arrangements have yet been worked out between the Board and the police because the Board does not exist. But there have been general discussions with the police and I can give the specific assurance that the Commissioner and the chief officers of the other principal police forces have told me, when I have discussed the matter formally with them, that they welcome both the Bill and the Board, and the powers given to the Board. They intend to co-operate very closely with the Board. They feel that the setting up of the Board will help them considerably and I think that close relations will be established between them. I do not think that I can say any more than that.
I turn to the Opposition Amendment to the Amendment, spoken to by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck). I agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet that it is a different matter to take away a man's licence rather than to refuse to give him one. Other people, including the employees, are concerned, and I think that it is right that there should be different procedures. The question is whether we should give powers to the Board to cancel the licence on the ground that gaming on the premises is not being fairly and properly conducted.
I think that there is a difference with the croupier. I have taken the view that these are matters susceptible of knowledge and judgment by the justices and that is why I think that it should go to them. Paragraph 18(b) says that they may refuse to grant or renew a licence if the applicant is not a fit and proper person.
Under paragraph 19(6) they may refuse to renew a licence on the ground that
while the licence has been in force, the relevant premises have not been so conducted as to prevent disturbance or disorder;".
I suppose that there we have the kind of situation envisaged by the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet. A croupier has cheated, there is a disturbance, and the police move in. It is clear that the licensing authority could take this into account.
Paragraph 19(c) says that they may refuse to renew a licence on the ground that
while the licence has bee,n in force, gaming on the relevant premises has been dishonestly conducted.'
That will become obvious from the dismissal of the croupier, even though the owner of the premises is sheltering behind him.
Under paragraph I9(d) they may refuse to renew a licence on the ground that
while the licence has been in force, the relevant premises have been used for an unlawful purpose or as a resort of criminals or prostitutes.
All these are matters that can and should be known to the justices.
We have just agreed Amendment No. 48, which said that when the Board has withdrawn an employee's certificate of approval at a time when he is still employed by the club the justices should have the power to refuse to renew the licence of the club where he was employed. So this is one of the considerations which the justices will take into account. It becomes a matter for the justices to decide whether the licence itself should be cancelled, either because they believe that the licensee could have been implicated in the employee's offence or because they consider that he has failed to exercise the supervision that he should.
The Board will be entitled to give whatever evidence it likes to the justices bearing on these matters, and all of it will be evidence of a kind which can be given in open court. But the Board will not be left in the position of being the sole and indisputable judge of the issue. It will be a matter for the licensing

justices to decide whether they can properly exercise their jurisdiction.
Where we can get proper supervision and use the normal processes of law, we should err on that side. I hope that the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Colchester will not be borne out. If they are, no doubt someone else will have to look at the matter again, but for the moment I believe, although I concede that I may be wrong, that there are sufficient powers here and that the evidence will be of such character that it will be proper for the justices to consider the matter and decide on it. I would prefer not to accept his Amendment as drafted.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Buck: By leave of the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): This is most unusual, normally requiring a special explanation from the Chair.

Mr. Buck: The Home Secretary has attributed the Amendment to the Amendment to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But in view of the assurance he has given about considering the matter of suspension again, I would wish not to move it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 59, in page 54, line 1, at end insert:
'by licensing authority or court'.
This Amendment is purely consequential on the new paragraph 31, dealing with the revocation of certificates of consent by the Board, on which the relevant licences automatically become void.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 60, in page 57, line 4, at end insert:
'prohibiting such a licence from being held in respect of the relevant premises during a period specified in the order'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendments No. 61, 62 and 63.

Mr. Morgan: These Amendments are similar to those made to Clauses 23 and 24 of the Bill, by which a court convicting a licence-holder of an offence


under the Act may no longer disqualify him—it being left to the Board to decide whether to revoke its certificates of consent in respect of any other licences he may hold—but may still disqualify the premises concerned. These Amendments make a similar change in relation to the power of licensing justices to disqualify under paragraphs 44 and 45 of Schedule 2.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 61, in page 57, leave out lines 5 to 14.

No. 62, in line 20, leave out 'disqualification or'.

No. 63, in line 25, leave out from first 'of' to 'the'.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 64, in page 57, line 32, after 'shall', insert '(a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Government Amendment No. 65.

Mr. Morgan: These Amendments provide that a licence issued by the justices must specify, in addition to the name and description of the club, the certificate of consent in pursuance of which the application was made, and in such a manner as to identify it. They thus supply a necessary link in the documentation in case the fruit should fall with the tree on the revocation of a certificate of consent.

Mr. Buck: I do not wish to do other than commend the hon. Gentleman's somewhat biblical remarks, which we expect from him from time to time. Having gone into this matter, one finds that the Amendment is necessary to get the chain of documentation correct and we welcome it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 65, in line 34, at end insert:
'and
(b) specify (in such manner as may be sufficient to identify it) the certificate of consert under this Schedule in pursuance of which that application was made'.

No. 66, in line 39, after 'whether', insert:
'in consequence of the revocation of a certificate of consent or'.

No. 67, in line 47, at end insert:

(2) In the application of sub-paragraph (l)(a) of this paragraph to a licence which is in force on the date on which section 1 of this Act comes into operation, for the reference to the month of May therein mentioned there shall be substituted a reference to the first month of May following the first anniversary of that date.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment is No. 68, with which, I think, it would be for the convenience of the House to take No. 69 and No. 71.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, Amendment No. 68, in page 50, line 20, at the end to insert:

Certificate of consent for purposes of application for transfer of licence

50.—(1) An application for the transfer of a licence under this Act from one person to another shall be of no effect unless the Board have issued to the applicant a certificate consenting to his applying for a transfer of the licence to that other person, and that certificate is for the time being in force and the application is made within the period specified in the certificate.

(2) In the following provisions of this Schedule any reference to an application for the transfer of a licence under this Act shall be construed as not including any application which by virtue of the preceding sub-paragraph is of no effect.

51.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect in relation to any application to the Board for such a certificate of consent as is mentioned in the last preceding paragraph.

(2) The Board shall not issue a certificate on any such application if it appears to the Board that the person to whom the licence is proposed to be transferred (in this and the next following paragraph referred to as ' the proposed transferee ')—


(a) not being a body corporate, is under twenty-one years of age, or
(b) not being a body corporate, is not resident in Great Britain or was not so resident throughout the period of six months immediately preceding the date on which the application was made, or
(c) being a body corporate, is not incorporated in Great Britain.

(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, in determining whether to issue such a certificate of consent the Board shall have regard only to the question whether, in their opinion, in view of the character, reputation and financial standing—


(a) of the proposed transferee, and
(b) of any person (other than the proposed transferee) by whom, if the licence in question were transferred to him, the club specified in the licence would be managed, or for whose benefit, if that licence were so transferred, that club would be carried on,



the proposed transferee is likely to be capable of, and diligent in, securing that the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under it will be complied with, that gaming on the premises specified in the licence will be fairly and properly conducted, and that the premises will be conducted without disorder or disturbance.

(4) If on an application made under the last preceding paragraph the Board issue to the applicant a certificate consenting to his applying for the transfer of the licence to the proposed transferee, the certificate shall specify a period within which an application to the licensing authority for the transfer of the licence can be made.

52.—(1) Where the Board have issued a certificate of consent in respect of the transfer of a licence under this Act, then, subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, the Board may revoke that certificate at any time before the licence has been transferred to the proposed transferee.

(2) The Board shall not revoke a certificate by virtue of this paragraph unless it appears to them either—


(a)that the matters stated in the application on which the certificate was issued were false in a material particular, or
(b) that, since the certificate was issued, a licence under this Act held by the proposed transferee has been cancelled by virtue of a disqualification order made under section 23 of this Act or under this Schedule or in the exercise of the powers conferred on the licensing authority or the court by this Schedule.

(3)Where the Board determine to revoke a certificate by virtue of this paragraph they shall serve a notice on the holder of the certificate stating that the certificate is revoked; and the revocation shall take effect on the service of that notice.

(4) Where the Board serve a notice under sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph they shall send a copy of the notice to the clerk to the licensing authority, to the appropriate officer of police and to the appropriate collector of duty.

The effect of these three Amendments, put briefly, is that they are complementary in their effect to that of Amendment No. 40. They deal with the issue by the Gaming Board of certificates of consent to the transfer of licences and with the grounds on which the Board may subsequently revoke such certificates.

It is not my intention to go into any of the detail. The Amendments are absolutely complementary to the vetting machinery set up for the grant of a licence in the first place. If there are any points of detail which any hon. Member wishes me to touch on I shall be very glad to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 69, in page 58, line 25, at end insert:
and shall be accompanied by a copy of the certificate of consent issued by the Board for the purposes of that application.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 58, line 36 to leave out from the beginning to 'except' in line 37 and to insert:
'On an application for the transfer of a licence under this Act the licensing authority shall not refuse to transfer the licence'.
This is a purely drafting Amendment to paragraph 52 and it is consequential upon the need for a certification of approval before a valid application for transfer of a licence can be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 71, in page 59, line 4, at end insert:

Revocation of certificate after transfer of licence

54. In relation to a licence under this Act which has been transferred, and in relation to the certificate of consent in pursuance of which the application for the grant of such a licence was made, the provisions of paragraph 31 of this Schedule shall have effect as if, in sub-paragraphs (2), (3)(a) and (4) of that paragraph, any reference to the holder of the certificate were a reference to the person who is for the time being the holder of the licence.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3

REGISTRATION OF MEMBERS' CLUBS UNDER PART II IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 72, in page 60, line 8, at end insert:
(a) in paragraph 3(21 of that Schedule the words from 'and shall be accompanied by a copy of the certificate' onwards, and.
Again, this is a consequential Amendment. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 applies in general the same procedures to applications for the registration of members' clubs as are applied by paragraphs 3 to 9 of Schedule 2 to applications for the licensing of commercial clubs, but registered clubs will not previously have to obtain certificates of consent from the Board. This Amendment consequently deletes reference to such certificates.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment is No. 73, with which it would be convenient to take No. 74 and No. 75.

Mr. EJystan Morgan: I beg to move, Amendment No. 73, in page 60, line 12 at the end to insert:
and in paragraph 6 of that Schedule the reference to the date appointed under section 52(3) of this Act for the purposes of that paragraph were a reference to the date so appointed for the purposes of this paragraph'.
These Amendments, which deal with applications for the registration of clubs or institutes during the initial, transitional period, introduce the same changes as are introduced for the licensed clubs under the previous Amendments made at page 45, line 8, and page 57, line 47, respectively; that is to say, they provide, first, that applications to the justices must be made within six months of the date appointed under Clause 52(3) for bringing the relevant paragraph, that is, in this case, paragraph 3 of Schedule 3, into operation, and, secondly, that clubs which obtain registration during the transitional period, defined by reference to the application of Section 1, which will mark the effective changeover from the old laws governing gaming to the new, will not need to seek the renewal of registration till the following May 12 months thence.
Although in form the same provision is made in this way for the registered as for the licensed clubs the actual time for the operation is likely to be different. Since registered clubs will not have to obtain certificates of consent from the Board before approaching the justices there appears no reason why paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 should not be made operative soon after the Bill becomes law, thus requiring all applications to be submitted before the end of January, 1969, or thereabouts. The corresponding provisions for licences will need to be held back to allow the Board time to deal with certificates of consent, probably for a further five or six months, which will mean that, before they are called upon to tackle the formidable task of licensing, the justices should have had an opportunity to get rid of the bulk of the less exacting work on registration.
By virtue of the second Amendment members' clubs will not then have to seek renewal of registration until May 1971, and the justices, therefore, will be free of all work on renewals during 1970,

when they will have other duties under Part III of the Act relating to machines to attend to. We hope thus to be able to achieve a convenient dovetailing of the transitional arrangements.

Mr. Buck: This ties in with the timetable which we have had explained to us by the Home Secretary, now relative to registered clubs, which has been explained again, and we have had additional matters put before us by the Parliamentary Secretary.
I had the courtesy of being told what the approximate anticipated timetable would be and, therefore, I have been able to go into it with a certain amount of care. I think that it should work satisfactorily. It is a good thing that there is to be this staggering of the various categories of applications. Otherwise, the licensing justices might be overwhelmed with a spate of work all coming at one time. However, because of the various categories, this is being precluded.
Further, the initial period of licensing is likely to be rather longer. Therefore, there may be some small financial gain relative to registration fees in the initial period. This may or may not be so. I think that is the position. If so, this is possibly a small bonus for the operators in the first period of their licensing. This will perhaps be of some marginal benefit to them. One is glad that the licensing timetable seems to be working out in theory. We hope that in practice it will be fairly satisfactory.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 74, in page 64, line 42, at end insert:
(2) In the application of sub-paragraph (l)(a) of this paragraph to a club or institute which, on the date on which section 1 of this Act comes into operation, is for the time being registered under Part II of this Act, for the reference to the month of May therein mentioned there shall be substituted a reference to the first month of May following the first anniversary of that date.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4

REGISTRATION OF MEMBERS' CLUBS UNDER PART II IN SCOTLAND

Amendment made: No. 75, in page 70, line 14, at end insert:
(2) In the application of sub-paragraph (1)(a) of this paragraph to a club or institute which,


on the date on which section 1 of this Act comes into operation, is for the time being registered under Part II of this Act, for the reference to the month of December therein mentioned there shall be substituted a reference to the first month of December following the first anniversary of that date. —[Mr. Callaghan.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 5

PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL BY THE BOARD

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 76, in page 71, line 24, at end insert:
4. Where on an application under this Schedule it appears to the Board that the applicant requires their approval in respect of performing the function in question on, or acting in the capacity in question in relation to, all or any of a number of premises specified in the application, and the Board determine to give that approval, the Board may, if they think fit, issue to him a single certificate specifying all those premises.
The object of this Amendment, briefly, is to remove any doubt that, in issuing a certificate of approval to a gaming operative, manager, organiser, or supervisor under Clause 19 and Schedule 5, the Board is entitled to approve of the individual performing the relevant functions, or acting in the relevant capacity, in a number of different premises. Thus a bingo "caller" who acts during the week at several premises owned by the same organisation, as some of them now do, can be covered by a single certificate in respect of all, and so be saved some unnecessary inconvenience and expense. The principle may also have a wider relevance, as where a single person is appointed to manage two or more casinos in common ownership.

Mr. Buck: I am grateful that this Amendment has been put down. It is in direct response to a point made by myself and other hon. Members in Committee. It would be absurd if a "caller" at a Rank bingo hall, for example, was not able to operate in any one of the halls in that particular chain.
In Committee, I raised the point relative to croupiers. In this case there was a little more doubt about the need for this Amendment relative to them, although I suggested the Amendment be made, because one may well get a chain

of casinos or a link up between casinos in various parts of the country. For instance, the Playboy Club might have other branches. So it is sensible that that person, rather than the persons connected with particular premises, should be licensed. We are grateful to the Government for putting forward this Amendment. It seems to us to be in direct response to an interesting and prolonged debate in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 77, in page 71, line 37, leave out from beginning to second ' the '.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 78, in page 71, line 39, leave out from 'and' to first 'the' in line 40.
The Amendment has the same effect as Amendment No. 77, and in fact other Amendments, namely, that it removes all provisions in the Bill for appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision of the Gaming Board to refuse or to revoke a certificate of approval for operatives, managers, organisers, or supervisors in licensed clubs.

Mr. Buck: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that we considered this Amendment and the next one, No. 79, with an earlier Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sidney Irving): My record is that we disposed of Amendment No. 77, but not No. 78. We have dealt with Amendments Nos. 79, 80, and 81, but not No. 78.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 79, in page 71, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 on page 72.

No. 80, in page 72, line 21, leave out 'and appeals'.

No. 81, in page 72, leave out lines 37 to 47.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 6

CERTIFICATES AND PERMITS UNDER SECTION 26

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 82, in page 73, line 42, leave out from beginning to second 'the'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that with that Amendment we can take Amend-bent No. 83 in page 73, line 44, leave out from 'and' to first 'the' in line 45, and Amendment No. 84, in page 74, leave out lines 1 to 20.

Mr. Morgan: These Amendments are important in that they remove all Tight of appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision of the Board to refuse or to revoke a certificate required under Clause 26 for the repair or maintenance of machines. They are concerned with the removal of rights of appeal where the Board refuses or revokes a certificate of consent for a gaming licence under Schedule 2, or a certificate of approval to a gaming operative, a manager, or a supervisor under Schedule; 5. The considerations are the same as in those cases.

Mr. Buck: The arguments in support of these Amendments are the same, but the person involved is different, and I am not very happy about the Amendments. One can see, and one has ack-knowledged, that croupiers have tremendous opportunities and scope for operating dishonest gaming for their own personal advantage, perhaps in connection with others, perhaps entirely on their own. A croupier who works in a casino is in a particularly advantageous position to put any dishonest tendencies which he may have to lucrative use.
I am not sure that the same considerations apply to the retailers and suppliers of gaming machines. It is true that at an earlier stage hon. Gentlemen opposite revealed certain corrupt practices relating to gaming machines, but the retailer, the supplier, and the maintainer of machines are in a different position from a croupier, a worker, or an operator in a casino. I am not content that a retailer should have removed from him the right of appeal.
I find myself in a different position from that in which the Government find themselves. In fact, our positions are reversed from what they were on an earlier Amendment. Here I want additional safeguards for the operator of the machine, where as earlier I was in favour of the Board being given a more arbitrary power. I am not happy about the matter, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to look at it again to see

whether it is appropriate to remove the right of appeal from suppliers and retailers of this type of machine. It may not be necessary to have such Draconian powers.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The hon. Member has argued for a distinction between machines and gaming clubs, but, whereas the retail of gaming machines has been legitimate business since 1960 and of amusement machines for much longer, it can be and has been argued that gaming clubs have been established in defiance of the law. But putting that argument at its strongest, the distinction is not in propriety of conduct. We all know that there has been as much racketeering, if not more, in the supply of machines as in the conduct of clubs.
I appreciate that there is a great difference of opinion about whether the Board should have the power to grant or withhold approval, but this does not arise under the Amendment. What arises is the question of whether there should be a right of appeal from the Board's decisions. One of the difficulties about an appeal system here is that the weight of responsibility tends, with the passage of time, to pass to the appellate authority. In other words, the body charged by Parliament with responsibility in the matter has to consider not only whether what it does is right but also what the appellate authority is likely to be willing to sustain. The inevitable result must be a division of responsibility, which in the long run makes for weakness, uncertainty and muddle.

Mr. Buck: Then would the hon. Gentleman explain why the right of appeal was provided for croupiers and these people generally?

Mr. Morgan: I accept that we are seeking to correct our own provision, but, although it was originally felt that a review system was desirable, despite the fact that it would involve the Home Secretary in judicial functions not properly within his province, since then there have been introduced functions which have changed the Board's character and stature. In the circumstances, it would be wrong to vest these judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the Secretary of State, since it would inevitably lead to a twin-headed system of licensing and to uncertainty.
There is no doubt a strong case, as regards certain tribunals, where a number of units all over the country all have the same jurisdiction, for having an appeal to one executive body. It is often only in this way possible to preserve the necessary uniformity. But this is one Board and it would not strengthen but would weaken it to have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, which would be inappropriate in any event.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 83, in page 73, line 44, leave out from 'and' to first 'the' in line 45.

No. 84, in page 74, leave out lines 1 to 20.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 9

PERMITS UNDER SECTION 33

Amendment made: No. 115, in page 82, line 34, at end insert:
(3) The preceding provisions of this paragraph shall have effect subject to section 33(7) of this Act.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 106, in page 83, leave out lines 4 to 8.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, we are taking Amendment No. 107.

Mr. Morgan: The purpose of these Amendments is to delete paragraph 11 of Schedule 9 and paragraph 8 of Schedule 11. The intention of these paragraphs was to enable a local authority, in granting or renewing a permit for the use of amusement machines under Schedule 9 or for amusements with prizes otherwise than by machines under Schedule 11, to stipulate that, while the permit is in force, the premises shall not be used for any specified purpose
There have been complaints that sometimes during the currency of a permit, which the House is aware is for three years, premises have been converted to purposes with which the local authority would never have allowed the use of amusement machines, often mere fruit machines, or other amusements to be associated; for instance, where a cafe is taken over and converted into a shop,

perhaps a toy or sweet shop frequented by children. The object of these paragraphs, therefore, was to enable the local authority, when granting or renewing a permit, to provide for it to lapse should the premises be put to any specified use which the authorities would consider unsuitable.
It was evident from the representations made both before and in Committee that these provisions were open to misinterpretation. My predecessor, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne), undertook to have the drafting reconsidered to remove the ambiguity, and this has now been done, However, there seems to be no ready solution without instituting an unduly elaborate system which the nature and size of the problem would not justify and which would be likely to result in difficulties of enforcement as well as inconvenience to local authorities and permit holders alike.
A permit holder might be required to notify the local authority of a change of use of premises; but would, for example, the conversion of a cafe to a licensed restaurant be a change of use for this purpose? It is likely that different authorities would take a different view of this, depending to some extent on their policy as regards the issue of permits. It would also be unreasonable to expect a permit holder to incur the expense of a new permit for the restaurant if the unexpired permit for the cafe lapsed when the change was made.
It is not possible to specify in the Bill the circumstances in which application for a new permit should be made. It has been decided that, on the whole, it would be better to omit the paragraphs altogether than to leave them in their present ambiguous state or attempt to provide a more elaborate arrangement. It must be left to local authorities to state clearly in the permit the premises to which it relates and the use to which the premises must be put if the permit is to be allowed to continue. If that is done in every case, no difficulty should arise.

Mr. Buck: A complicated drafting point was raised on this matter in Committee, and I think that this solution is a very sensible one. It is refreshing to see, for once, the content of a Bill cut


down. A simple case of surgery has been effected here, cutting out part of the Bill which was superfluous. As the hon. Gentleman says, no difficulty should arise if local authorities make their conditions clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 11

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 116, in page 88, line 6, leave out from ' to' to end of line 18 and insert:
'the provision, at any entertainment to which section 43 of this Act applies, of any amusement with prizes which constitutes a lottery or gaming or both but does not constitute—

(a) gaming to which Part II of the Gaming Act 1968 applies, or
(b) gaming by means of a machine to which Part III of that Act applies.


(2) Where any such amusement constitutes a lottery, nothing in section 41 or section 42 of this Ac: shall apply to it.
(3) In relation to any such amusement (whether it constitutes a lottery or not).'

No. 117, in page 88, line 27, leave out from 'constitute' to 'and' in line 31 and insert:
'a lottery or gaming or both but do not constitute gaming to which Part II of the Gaming Act 1968 applies or gaming by means of a machine to which Part III of that Act applies'.

No. 118, in page 88, leave out lines 42 to 45 and insert '(c)'.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 119, in page 89, line 9, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Amendments Nos. 120 and 121.

Mr. Morgan: The Amendments relate to Section 49 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963, which allows fairground amusements, usually under permit from the local authority, to which the public can be admitted.
New subsection (3B) prevents permits for amusements of this kind being issued by a local authority in respect of premises that are licensed already under Part II of the Bill. This, therefore, pre-

vents the conflict between Section 49 and new Clause 2 which would otherwise occur. New Clause 2 provides licensed clubs with the equivalent in the form of "gaming with prizes", but the same facilities are not extended to registered clubs and institutes, because it would be inappropriate to do so.
New subsection (3C) confers the usual power on the Secretary of State to vary by regulations the financial limits on charges stipulated in Section 49 of the 1963 Act, and new subsection (3D) provides for this power to be exercised by statutory instrument, subject to negative resolution procedures.

Mr. Buck: This sort of Amendment causes one to have vast admiration for parliamentary draftsmen, and also to have some trepidation as to whether there may not be some further points of a similar character. Without this Amendment there would be conflict between Section 49 of the 1963 Act and new Clause 2, and the Amendment seems to put this right. I hope that if there are any other points of a similar character they will be picked up in another place. As a practising lawyer, I know that such 'matters can cause great difficulty to lawyers and laymen alike at a later stage if they are not picked up now.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 120, in page 89, line 19, at end insert:
(3B) No permit under this section shall be granted in respect of any premises where a licence under the Gaming Act 1968 is for the time being in force in respect of them or where a club or a miners' welfare institute is for the time being registered in respect of them under Part II of that Act; and, where such a licence is granted or a club or a miners' welfare institute is so registered in respect of any premises, and a permit under this section is then in force in respect of those premises, the permit shall thereupon cease to have effect.
(3C) The Secretary of State may by order direct that any provision of this section which is specified in the order and which specifies a sum shall have effect as if, for that sum, there were substituted such other sum as may be specified in the order.
(3D) Any power to make an order under this section shall include power to vary or revoke the order by a subsequent order, and shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and any statutory instrument containing any such order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

No. 121, in page 91, line 12, at end insert:
(3) The preceding provisions of this paragraph shall have effect subject to section 49(3 B) of this Act.

No. 107, in page 91, leave out lines 13 to 17.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 12

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 122, in page 94, line 4, column 3 at end insert Section 49(4).
I am pleased to move the last of the Amendments to be selected. This is a drafting Amendment which repeals Section 49(4) of the 1963 Act, which is concerned with the use of machines for amusements with prizes. This matter is now dealt with in Part III of the Bill. The substance of this provision is reproduced in Clause 33(4).

Amendment agreed to.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill began its course through Parliament in February and I would like, before taking leave of the Bill, to express my gratitude to the House and not least to the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) for the constructive manner in which they have approached the consideration of the Bill.
I hope that it will be agreed, also, that my hon. Friends have done a great deal to assist in its improvement. I would particularly like to mention my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, who, in Committee, carried the burden of the debate and who has now been translated—I will not say as a result of his work on the Bill, although it must have been good preparation for his translation—to the Treasury. I also thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, for whom I am filled with admiration for his comprehensive mastery of the Bill. I am grateful for the assistance that he has given me.
There have been differences, as there are bound to be, about the Measure, but there has not been a fundamental cleavage of principle. They have been differences

about practical matters and, as a result of the joint effort of both sides, there have been two major changes of emphasis introduced into the Bill. With the consent of hon. Members—indeed, with me being pressed to assent to the change—the powers of the Board have been greatly increased. The supervision which the Board can exercise over the licensing system has been strengthened by the right given to it to advise the justices over a wide sphere in which applications fall to be considered.
More important, the Board, as we have recently been discussing, has been given powers to investigate the bona fides of applicants and their financial sponsors— powers of a far-reaching character which, I believe, are quite unprecedented for a statutory body. The principles on which these powers rest is that nobody can claim the right to provide commercial gaming, whether as principal or as agent; it is a concession and it is to be granted only as the authorities see fit. The condition is that the authorities must behave in a responsible manner, subject to the overall check of the courts in the process of natural justice and the check of Parliament in a continuing review of the manner in which the powers are exercised.
We have accepted the principle and the paramount need to prevent criminal elements from establishing themselves in gaming. It is for this reason that we have given the Board by general consent of the House, powers that are of an absolute and arbitrary nature and are of such a character that they must, in all justice, be restricted to circumstances in which the normal processes of judicial hearings cannot be expected to provide the safeguards which are needed in a matter such as commercial gaming.
It is difficult for the ordinary member of the public to realise, as some hon. Members have realised, what lies beneath some of the soft lights and sweet music of gaming. It is made no more civilised because of the soft lights and sweet music. Those of us who have studied this matter know that we are dealing with a very ingenious group of people who will take advantage of the law unless it is carefully drafted.
Another major point which overshadowed our Second Reading deliberations was the fact that we have drawn a distinction, as was my desire, between the pastime of bingo and other forms of


gaming of a potentially more dangerous kind. As for the commercial bingo clubs, important concessions have been made, especially in Clause 20. These are conditional on bingo clubs abandoning other forms of gaming, to which reference has been made. One of the most unwelcome of recent developments has been the adoption of hard gaming by bingo clubs, with the resulting wide popularisation of these forms of gaming. Now the bingo clubs can confine themselves to bingo and, provided that they do that, there are concessions of a valuable nature for them.
The Bill also helps many genuine members' clubs, working men's clubs, miners' welfare institutes, and so on, many of which provide bingo non-com-mercially for the enjoyment of their members. The concessions which the House has made in Clauses 39 and 40, both for them and for others who promote gaming for strictly disinterested objects, such as charity, are significant.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Since the right hon. Gentleman's comments yesterday on Clause 4, in the "charitable" debate, I have carefully studied the relevant part of the 1963 Act, which is Section 48, and I think that one can be satisfied that that provision does not cover the position of what one might call real gaming for charitable entertainment. I suggest that it covers virtually only amusements with prizes. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will look at the matter carefully between now and the Bill reaching another place in view of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said in his speech, to which the right hon. Gentleman replied.

Mr. Callaghan: I understand that the prizes are of a substantial character. In any case, I have undertaken to look at the matter again. My advice is not the same as the hon. Gentleman's. I assure him that I will consider the matter before the Bill gets to another place.
We have no intention of interfering with legitimate interests of a largely social character, but as for hard gaming—that is, games for profit, such as chemin de fer, roulette and blackjack—I would like once again to make it unmistakably clear that the object of the Government, I believe with the approval of the House,

as shown in our debates, is that we should restrain this activity and cut it back. It is necessary for me to repeat this because it is the general regulation-making powers of the Bill which will be mostly invoked for this purpose and I do not wish there to be any misapprehension about the use of these powers.
Leaving moral judgments aside, we cannot hope to control this activity in such a way as to prevent profiteering, dishonesty and sheer criminality except by reducing the number of clubs to a manageable proportion—to, say, one-third or one-quarter of the present number, although I would not at this stage like to make a clear pronouncement. This is a case in which the regulation-making powers of the Bill, which I shall be bringing before Parliament in due course, will be used for this purpose.
The system will remain as it was conceived, in which the local responsibility of the justices and the police will be closely married together and will be expressed through the medium of the regulations and not through rigid statutory provisions—and, as the hon. Member for Colchester said, with the Gaming Board occupying a much more pivotal position than it was expected to occupy when the Bill was originally introduced.
I approach the Bill with some trepidation in expressing a conclusion about it because I know what my predecessors said about the Measures which they introduced and the manner in which they dealt with that legislation. I therefore say, in a spirit of humility and without reflection on my predecessors, that I approach the Bill in the knowledge of past failures. We have seen the ridiculous spectacle which the gaming proprietors have been able or have been allowed to make of the law as it stands.
I have recognised—and the House has appreciated this—that on this occasion nothing superficial will do. As a result, hon. Members have examined the nuts and bolts of the Bill with great care. I hope that we are right this time. In the present state of knowledge I believe that we have a workmanlike machine here, but in view of past experience we will have to leave history to show whether I am being as inaccurate as my predecessors were in forecasting the success of their efforts? It has been an exhausting


task, but if we have succeeded it has been well worth while.
I will only say, in conclusion, that we are not dealing with a minor matter. I believe that the House will agree with me that the curbs that are introduced by the Bill have not come one moment too early. Probably it would be rash to say we have found a complete answer to the problems, but I believe that with the Gaming Board and the powers with which it has been invested, and the responsibilities which have been given to licensing authorities, we now have a framework of control which is strong and yet flexible; and it gives at any rate every hope of achieving what we expect it to do.
I hope, therefore, that the House will feel that it has been engaged on a worthwhile task. I know that there was a spirit almost of cameraderie between members of the Committee in their efforts to improve the Bill. I hope that the House will also feel that the Government have played their part by being willing to listen to reasonabe argument and to make concessions whenever they felt it was important and necessary to do so. I commend the Third reading to the House.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Buck: The saga of major legislation relative to gaming over the last few years has not been a happy one, but I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will perhaps hope that this is perhaps the end of the road in relation to major legislation on gaming and that such legislation can at some time come to a happy end.
Of course, the House is quite right not to be too optimistic about it in view of the unhappy time that we have had with major legislation in the past. It is, unfortunately, the case that the 1960 Act caused grave difficulty, first to the courts. Then, from the difficulties into which the courts got, the police were placed in what I believe has been an impossible position in attempting to enforce that Act. So were, and so are today, the operators of gaming establishments which are really seeking to run good and reputable gaming establishments.
We hope to see before long an end to the uncertainty and we hope that this will be a successful Bill. I have feelings

of guarded optimism about it. It may well be necessary to reorientate certain parts in the light of experience, and perhaps give greater powers to the Gaming Board on the lines suggested from both sides of the House from time to time. By and large, gaming has been described as a pervasive social phenomenon and it has also been suggested by an authority on gaming, Mr. Rubner, who wrote a book on the economics of gambling, that it is both desirable and possible to view gaming with detachment and without immoderate passions. I like to think that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee, on the whole, dealt with the Bill with a certain degree of detachment and without immoderate passions.
On one or two occasions I have been accused of putting forward with too great fervour the position of bingo as being, as I feel it to be, very different in category from hard gaming. Hon. Gentlemen opposite at one stage accused me of espousing the cause of bingo perhaps too fervently and perhaps to some extent I was guilty of that. But we on this side from time to time have detected a slight tendency of the Home Secretary towards semi-Cromwellian puritanism. That appeared to be creeping in a little and lately it has been echoed in Celtic terms by his hon. Friend the Undersecretary. There have been these tendencies in different ways towards im-moderacy from time to time, but I believe that, on the whole, we have done what we can to keep within Mr. Rubner's maxim that this is a matter which should be considered with detachment and without immoderate passions.
Major changes have been effected by the Committee and now by the House during the course of the passage of the Bill and I would like to thank the Home Secretary very much for the gracious and pleasant tributes he paid to some of us on this side for what we have tried to do to improve the Bill. We have enjoyed very great co-operation from the other side—and that is their responsibility—and we have done what we could to help. There is a point which has arisen on the Report stage. I lost count of the tally, but I believe that, in all, about 140 Amendments were put down, the vast majority of them by the Government. When suddenly confronted with a vast number of Amendments on the


Notice Paper even a Member who has lived with the Bill for a long time may have to spend hours trying to find out exactly what each Amendment involves, and whether it is a drafting Amendment or contains an important hidden point. Because of personal difficulties, I approached the Home Secretary, who said that I could contact someone in his Department and he was extremely helpful in this matter.
I should like the Home Secretary to consider whether on the Report stage of Bills such as this, when Government Amendments are put down, there should be something in the nature of an explanatory memorandum as there is to the Bill when it is produced de novo. That, in effect, is what happened in this case, through latitude for which I was grateful. It saved hours of work and much time on Report. One would have had to delve much more deeply but for that prior explanation.
The major redrafting of the Bill has meant a very great strengthening of the powers given to the Board. Although on Second Reading it was described as the pivot of the Bill, it was not the pivot for largely its powers were advisory. Now the Board has been given very significant powers. It has the power to veto an applicant and to prevent him getting a licence to operate a casino. The chairman of the Board will now be a real pivot. Its success will depend very much on him. I hope that we shall soon be told the calibre of the person who is to be chairman. It is of great importance that he should be of the greatest calibre.
The chairman must be supported by inspectors, probably a larger number than was envisaged in Committee. They should be paid more than £2,500 a year as was originally suggested. This, in a sense, has been provided for in the Bill because of the large increase in the amounts of charges we have considered. It is vitally important that the staff of the Board should be paid highly because they will be subjected to very considerable temptations by some of those who are operating on the fringe of these casino-type activities. It is vitally important to have someone of the highest calibre as chairman and for him to have trained accountants to support him as inspectors. I am glad to have had the

assurance about co-operation with the police. The police welcome the role they will be asked to play. It is important to have properly qualified people. I commend again the possible formation of a gaming squad.
There have been matters which have divided the House concerning the Bill, but I hope that now it will go forward rapidly because it is important that the Board should get down to its work of advising the Home Secretary so that he can make the Orders which he is empowered to make and can "vet" those who wish to apply for licences. The present position in London and throughout the country relative to gaming is most unsatisfactory.
Mny of us on this side of the House have done some research on this, and we know very well, as I imagine hon. Members opposite know, that there are some very undesirable casinos operating in the metropolis. The sooner the Board gets to grips with them the better. There are also some very well run casinos where hard gaming goes on and where people are striving to keep within the law. They are in the greatest difficulty at present because of the great uncertainty of the legal position, and the police are also in considerable difficulty.
I therefore hope that the Bill will speedily and efficiently go through its remaining stages and will bring to an end the uncertainty and rather sorry saga of gaming legislation in this country.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: As one who did not serve on the Standing Committee, I should like to add my congratulations to the Government and Opposition members of the Committee not merely for producing a good Bill in the circumstances but also for considerably improving it since it was introduced.
It may be a measure of the improvement in the Bill that when it was first published I produced a considerable list of points which I wished to raise but now find myself with only one left on which I think a little thought is still required. Many of us who did not serve on the Committee feel that a good job was done by both sides, and I hope that the Bill will provide at least some of the answer to the very unsatisfactory position we


have had in the past year or two in gaming generally.
The one point I want to raise was covered in Committee and again last night. It concerns the ban which the Bill puts on sharing arrangements for amusements with prizes machines in licensed premises. I declare an interest in the matter—if it is necessary for a person with my name to do so. I raise the point not because of that but because I know a little of how this works in practice.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot amend the Bill on Third Reading. He can, however, denounce what is in it.

Mr. Younger: I did not intend to amend the Bill but merely to ask the Government if they would sympathetically consider my point, or perhaps I should say the denouncement which I wish to make, possibly in another place. The case has not been made for the refusal to allow sharing arrangements in licensed premises. They are being allowed in amusement arcades, and I cannot see any essential difference between those two types of establishment, in the relationship between the suppliers of the machines, the operators and the public, that would require the rules to be different.
The object is not to abolish the use of the machines but the method by which they are made available. It was stated in Committee that this was to prevent abuses. There has been no evidence that there is any difference between those two types of premises in the possible abuses.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We discussed this Amendment on Report. We are past Report stage now.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but I thought that it was in order on Third Reading to refer to matters in the Bill and to suggest to the Government that in another place they might consider doing something more about them. That is my only object. I shall be as brief as possible on this subject, and I hope that I shall be in order. It seems to me that three people are involved in these transactions. We have the supplier of the machine, known as the retailer—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is addressing himself to an Amendment which was debated in Committee and defeated.

Mr. Younger: Of course I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I must confine myself in my remarks and shall not be able to put some of the arguments with which I had hoped to persuade the Government to reconsider the matter. However, perhaps they will take it in good faith from me that there are sound arguments for saying that, with the best of intentions, they are making a mistake in this distinction. I hope that they will give some indication that they will look at the matter sympathetically in the weeks ahead and, if they think fit, will make a change in another place.
I repeat that I am a supporter of the Bill. It makes an improvement and I hope that the small further improvement which I have mentioned will be added at a later stage.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Deedes: I want to begin with a short tribute to the former Under-Secre-tary of State, now Minister of State, Treasury. I am sure that all of us who served in the Committee with him will wish to make that tribute. We were sorry when he parted from us and I pay tribute to the contribution he made.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman speak up? I think that the reporters might have some difficulty in hearing him.

Mr. Deedes: These are almost confidential asides to the Home Secretary, Mr. Speaker, but I accede to your request. I apologise for not being here for the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Bill as a framework which we can fill in. The Board has become central, as some of us intended that it should, to the purpose of the Home Secretary. I thing that this is quite inevitable because the longer the Bill has gone on the more I have become convinced of the expertise which will be required to fulfil the purpose. Good intentions are not enough. We shall need some very clever people to see that the intentions we have expressed are fulfilled.
When I began work on the Bill with some of my colleagues, both on the practical as well as on the legislative aspect, and after a short time, I thought I knew something about it. I have finished up by realising how little I know of the subject of gaming and those who go with it. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of that as well. But this has impressed upon me the fact that we shall be tremendously dependent on the experts he appoints to the Board and those experts which the Board appoints to see this thing through. We always finish with a Bill feeling that we have done a great job of work but I think that we should acknowledge that point. For that reason, I think that the relations between the Board and its staff and the clubs left in operation after a year or two will also be critical.
I have formed the view, although some of my hon. Friends may not agree, that the Board and its inspectors will not be able to operate effectively in an uncooperative club. If a club really wants to blanket what it is doing, I am not saying that it will not eventually be uncovered, but the process will take a long time and a lot of work. I foresee a working relationship of a certain kind between the Board and the clubs, under which, eventually, the right sort of relationship will be established. Obviously, the relationship should not be too close but if it is too distant, if the Board tries to establish itself as a kind of outside police force, I believe that some of our intentions will founder. Therefore, I put some weight on the respectable clubs and the example they will set to others.
One should refer to the Church of England Committee, which has done an enormous amount of work on this and has supplied all of us with a lot of information we would not have otherwise have had. Its last memorandum did not escape my attention. It still feels that the arrangements we have made will leave too many clubs in existence. It has one sort of anxiety about this. Some of us have another sort. Undoubtedly, however, the effectiveness of control will depend on numbers. I think that a figure of 1,500 dubs was mentioned in the early stages and I do not know what we have in mind as the final number. But, if there an; too many, control will be difficult. It is, therefore, to be concluded

that the fewer there are the easier control will be, and, in a sense, the objective of the Home Secretary will be gained.
With respect to the Church of England Committee I would enter a word of caution. I think there is a danger in assuming that a reduction in the number of the clubs will in itself achieve the objectives which we want to gain. We have by one way and another induced a certain public demand for bingo and gambling, and unless it is met, and unless there are enough establishments in certain areas to meet it, there will be a danger of illicit establishments starting up even within the terms of the Bill. I know they can eventually be put down: they will be illicit; but they can be a tremendous nuisance and require a great deal of difficult, tiresome work by the police. I hope we shall not attempt to reduce the number of clubs to the point where the law of supply and demand will tempt certain people to provide establishments of another kind. That would be to pass the point of balance which we want to achieve.
I am sure we have to be guided by the Board and by the information it gives, and I would make a plea to the Home Secretary that as soon as possible the information which the Board will acquire in the light of its experience shall be made as public as possible. The Board will have to report to Parliament. It will have to get a lot of information—rather like the Race Relations Board. It will have to give the information at the end of a year's work. That sort of information it will be very much in the public interest to share, and the more we know of the experience of the Board and what it feels it will do in the light of experience the better. Whether we have an annual report or not, I plead with the Home Secretary that the experience of the Board be as widely publicised as possible to assist us in what I think will be further stages on the road we have now entered upon.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Kitson: I should like to echo the tributes which have been paid from both sides of the House to the splendid work which the Committee did in improving the Bill. As a Whip in that Committee I thought it the least political Committee I had ever been on. The task of the Whips was not difficult. Indeed, we had


voting in most combinations on occasions. I am sure we improved the Bill a good deal in Committee.
I should like to make two points. I welcome what obviously will be a reduction in the number of clubs and I welcome something that has not been mentioned but which I think extremely important, and that is the stricter control of credit, and I am sure that that will be a great advantage.
I do not share the Home Secretary's thoughts that gaming is all that wicked an occupation. Life, I think, is largely a gamble. Some have more luck than others. I only hope that on this occasion with this Bill on gaming the House will have more luck than it has had with previous pieces of legislation on gaming and when, obviously, it did not have as much luck as it should have done.
Now the Board will have a tremendous job to do. We all wish it well in the task it will take on.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — HARBOURS (LOANS AND GRANTS)

9.55 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I beg to move,
That the limit on the aggregate amount of loans and grants together made by the Minister of Transport under Sections 11 and 12 of the Harbours Act 1964 as extended by the Docks and Harbours Act 1966 shall be £100,000,000 instead of £50,000,000.
I think perhaps it will be of assistance to the House if, before dealing with the reasons for this Motion, I outline the nature and scope of the powers given to my right hon. Friend by the Sections referred to.
Section 11 of the Harbours Act, 1964, as extended by Section 40 of the Docks and Harbours Act, 1966, empowers my right hon. Friend, after consultation with the National Ports Council and with the approval of the Treasury, to make loans to statutory harbour authorities; that is to say, harbour authorities which have statutory powers and duties in relation to their

harbours. These loans may be made to enable the authorities to meet expenses of a capital nature incurred in acquiring land or plant and machinery, or in executing works. There is also power for my right hon. Friend to make further loans to cover payments due during the first five years on a loan made by him under the Section. The money for loans under the Section is issued by the Treasury out of the National Loans Fund; it is not voted money. Finally, in order to avoid possible confusion, I should perhaps point out that this power to make loans does not extend to the nationalised part of the industry, the British Transport Docks Board, nor to the ports managed by the British Railways Board and the British Waterways Board; loans to these boards are made under specific provisions included in the Transport Act, 1962.
Section 12 of the Harbours Act, 1964, again as extended by Section 40 of the Docks and Harbours Act, 1966, empowers my right hon. Friend, after consultation with the National Ports Council and with the approval of the Treasury, to make grants to statutory harbour authorities, to any other person engaged in improving, maintaining or managing a harbour, and to any person carrying out harbour operations. The term "harbour operations" broadly includes the marking or lighting of a harbour, the berthing or towing of ships, the warehousing and handling of goods, and the movement, embarkation etc. of passengers. Grants may be made in respect of expenses incurred in acquiring land, or plant and machinery, or in executing works. There is also power for my right hon. Friend to make grants to cover the first five years' interest due on a loan made by him under Section 11. The money to meet the grants comes from a Ministry of Transport Vote, and is therefore subject to the usual supply procedures. Finally, unlike Section 11, Section 12 extends to the nationalised Boards, and grants are made to them under the Section on the same basis as are grants to other persons.
Summing up, the House will note that both loans and grants may be made in respect of the acquisition of land, plant or machinery, the execution of works, or to meet the first five year's interest on a loan made under Section 11. In this respect there is no difference between the two Sections. But whereas loans may


only be made to statutory harbour authorities, grants may be paid to a much wider range of persons; and whilst loans are made from the National Loans Fund, grants are paid from a Ministry of Transport Vote; additionally, loans—but not grants—may be made to cover repayments of principal due during the first five years on a loan made under Section 11; in these respects, the Sections are different.
This Motion is moved under the provisions of Section 13 of the Harbours Act, 1964. Section 13(1) provides that the aggregate amount of loans and grants together made by the Minister under Sections 11 and 12 shall not exceed £50 million or, if so provided by a Resolution of the Commons House of Parliament, £100 million. There are two points to which I would invite the attention of the House. The first is that the Section refers to the aggregate amount of loans made, not to the total amount at any one time outstanding. Thus, as time passes and further loans are made, the total continually increases; it is not reduced by the repayment of loans already made. The second is that no half-way house is possible; if we require an increase above £50 million we cannot ask for £60 million or £75 million; we can only ask for £100 million. In passing, I understand—I may perhaps be wrong, but I believe it to be the case and the House may be interested to know this—that there is no precedent for a Motion of precisely this kind; in other cases limits to somewhat similar powers have had to be altered by Statutory Instrument. Therefore, in a very minor way, we are making a little history this evening.
I hope that this explanation of the statutory background to the Motion will have helped the House. I think the House would wish me now to say a few words about the use which my right hon. Friend has made, and intends to make, of these powers, and the reasons why we think it right now to ask the House to increase to £100 million, the limit of loans and grants taken together.
So far as loans are concerned, my right hon. Friend's policy is to make it possible for publicly-controlled harbour authorities to have access to Government funds at appropriate lending rates to facilitate the carrying out of projects of

port modernisation and development which are in the national interest. Loans are normally made for periods varying between 15 and 50 years, depending on the financial prospects and the expected useful life of the asset concerned. Each loan is related to a specific scheme; loans are not made in respect of the overall capital expenditure of an authority. Furthermore, each loan is restricted to the net cost of the project concerned; that is, after making allowance for any grant which may in due course become payable under Section 12. Any scheme which costs more than £500,000 can only be carried out after my right hon. Friend has given his authorisation under Section 9 of the Harbours Act, 1964; in these cases, therefore, the scheme will already have been subjected to close examination and evaluation, including financial appraisal on a discounted cash flow basis, before the loan is applied for. Schemes costing less than £500,000 can be carried out without my right hon. Friend's authorisation, and, before a loan is agreed, these will be examined carefully to ensure that they are soundly based. In all cases my right hon. Friend will wish to satisfy himself that the borrower will be able to service and repay the loan he is seeking.
So far my right hon. Friend has agreed to make loans totalling some £29 million. The greater part of this is in respect of major developments—the Port of London Authority's new docks at Tilbury, for which there was a loan of £14 million; the new entrance lock at Leith where the loan was £5 million; the dredging of the Tees to take large tankers, where the loan was £4 million; but a number of smaller loans have been made to cover lesser but significant improvements at, for example, Milford Haven, on the Stour/Orwell estuary, and at Whit-stable. The smallest is a loan of some £24,000 made to enable the dock gates at Berwick-upon-Tweed to be repaired.
My right hon. Friend's policy in respect of grants was announced by his predecessor in the House on 27th June, 1966. I think that it may be convenient if I recapitulate the essential points of that statement, which ran as follows:—
 I intend to use my powers under Section 12 of the Harbours Act, 1964, to make grants to statutory harbour authorities of 20 per cent, of their approved capital expenditure on



(a) building and civil engineering works which will make a substantial and desirable contribution to facilities for international trade, and trade with Northern Ireland and with Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles of Scotland.
(b) specialised plant and mechanical equipment required for loading or unloading goods in or from a sea-going ship or handling such goods on harbour land or at a wharf.


I also intend to make grants on expenditure of this kind by other harbour authorities and persons carrying out harbour operations."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 205–6.]
The scheme foreshadowed by that statement, since entitled the port modernisation grant scheme, is broadly intended to do for port authorities what the Board of Trade investment grant scheme does for manufacturing and extractive industry. Like that scheme it applies to payments made on and after 17th January, 1966. The first payments of grant were made in July, 1967. Because the former investment allowances continued to mature for some 18 months after they were discontinued in January, 1966, it was necessary, as explained in the Government's White Paper on Investment Incentives, Cmnd. 2874, to defer payment of grants initially in order to avoid too heavy a burden on the Exchequer. The interval has been progressively reduced, and payment is now made nine months after the end of the quarter in which the expenditure was incurred. In the period to the end of the financial year 1967–68 grants amounting to some £6 million have been paid, and payments are expected to continue at a rate of about £10 million a year for several years.
Totting up then, we have loans totalling £29 million; grants paid to date and to be paid this year, £16 million, making a total of £45 million. We have now received applications from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board for loans totalling nearly £14 million in respect of the first stage of its new Seaforth Docks and other major works at Liverpool; from the Milford Haven Conservancy for a loan of £4 million to meet the cost of dredging the Haven to take 250,000-ton tankers, and other applications may well be in the pipeline.
At this stage, therefore, we have come to the House to ask for this increase in

the limit on loans and grants as provided for in the Act. I hope that I have satisfactorily explained to the House why we need this Resolution, but if there are any points which I have not covered I will seek the permission of the House to try to answer them.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Although the effort to be in two places at once, which so many of us are making, clearly reflects on someone, I am sure that I will enjoy the relatively pleasant contrast between the somewhat semantic and tortuous controversies of prices and incomes and finance upstairs and the opportunity to get down to earth in this Chamber on an issue of fundamental importance.
Although very much less semantic and political—rather like the Bill which the House has just been considering—this Motion will, in my view, certainly affect all real incomes, prices and standards of living, possibly more than any other single category of national expenditure, with the possible exception of computers. There is no area of national policy in which an intelligently spent £ is more likely to add a millimetre of butter to the nation's bread than a £ intelligently spent on port modernisation.
Therefore, I particularly welcome the Minister of State's recent announcement that the Government approaches port reorganisation, for which this money is primarily required, with an open mind. We can see that the Government are asking for an open purse and we therefore welcome this declaration, even if we have some residual scepticism about the quality of the mind which they are keeping open.
The hon. Gentleman has already cleared up one question, because it was not clear from the memorandum describing this request whether the £29 million to be spent to date included the £6 million and the £10 million referred to subsequently. Apparently, it does, and I accept that the total is £45 million. In any event, at least £21 million of the original £50 million has now been committed or is about to be committed. It would be interesting to hear how the money is being and has been spent in rather more detail than the Parliamentary Secretary has given us. Since there


is evidence that what might be called the long rate of State expenditure on port projects is rising, what are the annual rates forecast for the years beyond 1968–69?
We have reached what appears to be a statistical peak, but there has been a decline recently. I am sure that the country would like to know whether the Government contemplate that this total will recover, whether what some statisticians describe as slippage in the actual amount of money spent as opposed to the amount of money authorised will recover, and whether the total expenditure is likely to rise in accordance with the new total authorisation which the Government now seek.
The second point that I ask the Parliamentary- Secretary to discuss in more detail is the relationship between the Treasury and the National Ports Council. It is clear that the loans are made with the approval of the Treasury and after consultation with the National Ports Council. The power to approve naturally confers a much greater authority on the Treasury. Is the Treasury merely seeing that the financial limits as a whole, the two sections described by the Parliamentary Secretary, are being observed, or is the Treasury passing judgment on the merits of schemes which the National Ports Council has itself approved?
If the latter assumption be correct, what steps have been taken to ensure that the Treasury is competent to exercise a discriminating judgment as between one scheme and another in similar or comparable schemes which have been submitted to it? If the Treasury is doing this, how do the Government justify the continuation of the National Ports Council? The Treasury's function is primarily to say how much, and the Council's function is primarily to say what and where. I do not gain any evidence so far that there is a clear and proper distinction being made in these two areas.
My next question to the Parliamentary Secretary is this. There is provision for loans to meet payments of interest and principal during the first five years. Can he give any idea how much of the money that has so far been made available has come back in this way; that is to say, how much of the total which has been authorised and actually paid out has come

back to the Treasury in the form of interest payments?
My next question is: of the money so far lent and spent what proportion has been paid out as loans under Section 11 to non-nationalised port authorities, and what proportion under Section 12 as modernisation grants, first, to public authority ports and, secondly, to other ports? What we would like to know is probably best described under the four headings that the National Ports Council itself produced in its digest of port statistics. There are four categories of ports here: nationalised ports; public trust ports; local authority ports; and private and other ports. It would be helpful to the House, and of great interest to the country, if we could discover exactly how the total sums so far made available have been distributed over these four areas, and if the Government would also give us some idea of how the sums which are now being requested will be distributed.
To come to more general questions on the area of expenditure for which this money is being required, the National Ports Council Report for 1967 contains on its own evidence no chapter on port planning. The reason for this is that a document on this subject was promised for 1968. The Government is asking for £50 million for essential expenditure on port planning, but so far we do not know what the plans are on which this money is to be spent. The National Ports Council may know, but it has not hold us if the document has not been published, and I assume that it has not been published. Can we be given a little more information on what the proposals are for which the money is required? If this is not available, are the Government not putting the cart before the horse, and should we not have had ample opportunity to consider the National Ports Council's proposals and thinking before being asked to pay for them, which is what we are being asked to do this evening?
Then the Government are laying great stress in many areas of policy on the provision of container services and unit load facilities. I am sure that it would be the unanimous opinion of hon. Members on all sides of the House who dabble in this activity that the powerful and effective thrust of private enterprise


into a proven and challenging area of new technology is probably one of the most encouraging and important factors in the country today.
It has to be associated with the development of appropriate facilities by port and other public authorities, because the two are clearly interdependent, and a vast expenditure of private capital in one area without an appropriate and matching expenditure of public capital in the other would simply produce a situation which was very much less than the optimum, nationally speaking.
Clearly, ships require cranes. Cranes may have to be provided by port authorities if the ships do not carry them, and, generally speaking, the most modern container ships do not. Some of this money may be required for that purpose. Then, they are particularly heavy cranes and, therefore, strengthening of quays will be necessary. Some of the money may be required for that. Then the containers require large areas for container parks, in some cases provided by private enterprise and in others by the public authorities. Then the movement of containers requires carriers. One can go on and on. Clearly, there is an appropriate distribution of the provision between public and private enterprise, and it would be interesting to know the Government's thinking on this sector of policy.
I hope that the Government will realise that this must remain a two-pronged thrust, and that the main thrust of private capital must not be blunted either by uncertainty of ownership or uncertainty of operation of the vast range of facilities on which some of this money will be spent. Equally, one must hope that it will not be blunted by the lack of appropriate development of public facilities, wherever they are required.
Can the Minister give us some idea of what proportion of the money that has been spent so far and what proportion of the new funds requested are likely to be spent, first, on container and unit load facilities, which is a most important area, and, second, on other facilities? When the sums involved are so high, I think that it would be extremely useful to have some idea of the Government's thinking.
That brings me to the whole philosophy of future port planning, which

again is the subject of this vast expenditure. So far, most of our thinking on port planning has been fundamentally related to port traffic forecasts. It is excellent that the National Ports Council should have invited the Department of Applied Economics of Cambridge University to study the relationship between imports and economic growth. I understand that its report has been completed and made available to port authorities. No one would quarrel with that, but why has it not been made available to Parliament If it is the type of information on which we are being asked to base our judgment of whether the very large sum of £50 million is required and likely to be spent correctly, the more information that we have, the better.
My next point concerns draughts. Is the Minister, in approving schemes for port development, now paying sufficient attention to the draughts of vessels likely to be used in the future for serving our major ports? There has been some public controversy over the Isle of Grain grain terminals, and I get the impression that the Government are revising their thinking on this very important subject.
Clearly, the rate of development in this area is very rapid. The increase in the size of vessels which has taken place over the last five years has been very dramatic, and there is no doubt that it is likely to continue and that the most careful, detailed and imaginative thinking is required by those who are spending money on the development of our ports. If we get left behind and make major errors of judgment in this sphere, the economic consequences will be more serious than some of those which appear to flow from more politically orientated subjects.
The question of small ports is of vital importance. The National Ports Council has commented that the vigour and enterprise of the small ports is an encouraging contribution to Britain's ability to compete in international trade in the European area. What proportion of the funds so far spent have gone to small ports in this country and are the Government proposing to encourage the development of small ports? Is some of the additional money now being requested likely to go into this viable and important area?
The success of our port investment programme is closely related, as the


National Ports Council points out, to the facilities for bulk goods. What proportion of new loan capital will be invested in this sphere? I am particularly interested in this because in an exchange of correspondence with the Minister of State some months ago I was disturbed at the mode of his thinking on this question because he wrote:
So far as bulk traffics are concerned, where only one or two shippers are involved, it would not be right for a port authority to propose a speculative development for bulk cargo, nor would we normally be prepared to authorise such a development. A port exists to provide a service; this service must be paid for by those who use it, and a port authority would therefore be very unwise to provide a specialised service—such as is required to cater for very large bulk carriers —without some assurance that it will be used and therefore paid for. Facilities for iron ore, for oil, for grain and for other bulk traffics, must match up to the demands of the customer, avoiding alike a failure to meet the customer's needs and the provision of costly facilities which the customer does not want.
Would the customer have wanted the container facilities now being provided at Tilbury in 1962? How great a lead would this country have gained had these facilities been provided in 1962 and had there been a much earlier response to the container challenge? That is merely my view, but I refer to the view of the Director of the Port of Rotterdam, which is in direct contrast to the view of the Minister of State. About £100 million is being invested in that port and, therefore, the Director's views merit our Close attention, particularly since the port is eminently successful.
This is how he describes his policy:
The time-lag between the decision and the realisation is much longer with the infrastructure projects, than with investments in the supra-structure. This difference in time must have been bridged by the port authority when private investment decisions are taken. If no short-term perspective can be offered to private investors, the port is no longer of interest to them because, in face of international competition, no positive commercial policy can be followed. The development of the infra-structure, therefore, must be a jump ahead of private enterprise decisions, and experience has clearly shown that these decisions—because of the presence of actual investment possibilities, always follow quickly. This experience proves that the municipality, although it anticipates private investment, by no means anticipates the developments which lead to these investments.
This brings me to the next matter which must be discussed when consider-

ing major national investments of this type, and that is the question of M.I.D.A.S., the Maritime Industrial Development Areas. Have the Government yet got beyond the study stage referred to in the National Port Council's Report? Have they heeded the warnings on page 6 of that Report? The conclusion here is that time is not on Britain's side and planning must proceed apace if we are to have comparable facilities in the next decade.
How long do the Government expect to have to go on with their studies and planning before we can actually see specific M.I.D.A.S. schemes beginning to emerge? In this connection I refer to the question of land reclamation. Here again, when we compare the whole range of British port investment and development with what is happening on the Continent of Europe a great contrast emerges. Of the 22 schemes submitted to the National Ports Council totalling £52½ million, only £54 million is for the deepening of channels but nothing at all is being spent on large-scale port land preparation. Is this still the situation and is it likely to remain the situation within the period likely to be covered by the next tranche of capital which Parliament is voting?
The complexities of this situation bear thinking about and are very well illustrated by an example I came across the other day. The Europort fertiliser complex established by the Esso Petroleum Company, I am reliably informed, will be able to supply South America's nitrogen requirements at a lower landed cost than that offered by the same company's plant in Central America. This is a direct consequence of the scale of operation permitted and encouraged in the vast schemes of Europe. Rotterdam has 4,000 acres of reclaimed land, Marseilles has 16,000 acres which are being reclaimed, Le Havre has a large industrial area earmarked, and at Antwerp the east bank has been occupied and plans for the west bank are being made.
It is an appropriate comment that out of 13 major continental ports studied during 1966–67 only three were stagnant and those three were ports which did not provide industrial sites for port industry. This appears to reach the nub of the whole argument if the money is to be


spent effectively, this is an area which the Government cannot overlook. How long do the Government expect this £50 million to last? How much will return in the form of loan repayments? Can the Government give a glimpse into the Government's thinking on the eventual annual scale of port capital expenditure

out of public funds? How soon will Parliament be asked to raise the £100 million limit. How soon will some of this money be irrigating the furrows of the M.I.D.A.S.? This is most fundamental to the national success which both sides of the House must most earnestly require from any investment in this field be it private or public.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: We have had a very comprehensive review of this subject by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd). I do not complain because I know of his knowledge and I share his interest, as do some of my hon. Friends, with considerable constituency and other interests, in this matter. I want to follow up only one or two points he made for clarification of the way in which it is proposed this further sum of money which I am sure we wish to vote is to be used.
I welcome very much the announcement made in regard to developments in Liverpool and elsewhere, but like others I am concerned as to what extent the funds to be made available are to be concentrated purely in two or three major projects and to what extent very important developments rejected elsewhere can be provided for in the money which I hope we shall vote tonight.
I very much agree that it is impossible always to guarantee the full use of resources before initiating important projects. The very refusal to initiate projects may prevent important developments that would otherwise take place, and make it impossible for those concerned with making demands for facilities to come to a logical conclusion.
Therefore, while I appreciate the difficulties that must face the National Ports Council and the Ministry I appeal to the Government to give special attention to important projects where there is a reasonable prospect of their development and full use, and where the consequential employment is of the utmost importance. I refer here, of course, to developments on the River Tyne, which have been put before the Ministry on a number of occasions. There we have an example of precisely the kind of development to which my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Langstone referred.
We are concerned with developments that are not quite on the scale of those which we are glad to see going forward in Liverpool, but which are, nevertheless, important. They include deepening the channel in the harbour and making proper provision for the requirements of the new size of vessel to which the hon. Gentleman referred. If we are merely

to maintain facilities for the existing size and draught of vessel we shall not maintain our trade for the future. We shall deny the whole of the Tyne and perhaps other rivers the share of trade which should rightfully be theirs.
I am particularly anxious that my hon. Friend should give the assurance that projects like those put forward on the Tyne for the linking of the deepening of the harbour with the reinforcement of harbour facilities at such a port as Tyne Dock at the mouth of the river, the strengthening of the dock facilities, and provision for the larger cranes that will be required for the larger ships, will be given new attention because of the new developments taking place in the neighbourhood.
We have made our case for the River Tyne in the past on the basis of the very considerable import of iron ore for the steel works at Consett. But doubts have been expressed as to whether this is sufficient justification for the developments. We all very much welcome the Government's recent decision to support the development of the aluminium smelter industry. We now have the need for proper facilities for the import of the aluminium ore in addition to the present import of iron ore.
The existing facilities would no doubt be adequate for vessels of 40,000 gross tons, a common size at present, but would not be adequate for the future. It is almost certain that, as in other trades, the size of the bulk carriers for aluminium ore will also be greatly increased. Here is an opportunity to go ahead sensibly and imaginatively with a major project for development on the Tyne—the deepening of the harbour and the provision of better port facilities which will be of benefit both for the iron ore and future aluminium ore imports.
I have written to the Ministry on this subject and I ask that the very important matter of how these new cargoes are to be dealt with in this exciting new prospect of development should be kept in mind and brought vigorously to the attention of the Board of Trade and other Departments which are bound to be involved. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me that assurance, although I understand that, not having given him prior notice, I shall have to await a more detailed reply.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Eric Heffer: I support the Motion particularly because, obviously, it will be exceedingly beneficial to the Port of Liverpool. I hope that the £14 million in the application from the Mersey Docks and Harbours Board will be looked upon with a friendly eye and a decision expedited as quickly as possible.
If there is anywhere where there is need for modernisation of British industry, it is in the ports. In Liverpool, especially, much of our passenger trade has gone and must be replaced. It can and will be replaced by the development of the new container berths at Sea-forth and I understand that most of this £14 million will be needed for that development. It is, indeed, very commendable that, at a time of economic difficulty, the Government are prepared to ask the House to grant extra sums of money for port development.
How much of this money for port modernisation is likely to be set aside for the improvement of welfare conditions, and so on, for the workers? This is an essential part of any modernisation. There is no point in modernising the ports unless the workers' conditions are also improved. We all know from the various reports made over the years how bad and how far behind the working conditions in the ports are. I know that it is difficult for him to be precise on the matter, but perhaps, in the broadest terms, my hon. Friend could tell us how much of the money is intended for use in the modernisation of working conditions.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) raised a valid point when he hoped that the modernisation programme would in no way be blunted because of uncertainty about future ownership. He and I approach this from somewhat different directions but I agree with him on that point. The Labour Party has been committed to an extension of public ownership in the docks at the earliest possible time, but there have been some disturbing Press reports that there is likely to be a bit of backsliding on the issue.
I would like to get the position clear. If we intend public ownership, we should say so and get on with it. I hope that this is the Government's intention, but if it

is not then equally they should say so and make the position clear. I agree that uncertainty is the worst thing of all in relation to forward planning. I believe that we can forward plan best if we extend public ownership, but I can see the opposite side of the argument in that those in private enterprise, particularly in container development, would also like to know where they stand.
Even if my hon. Friend cannot give an answer tonight, I hope that he will take the point about uncertainty of ownership and that the matter will be cleared up as quickly as possible so that we know precisely what is to happen. If we are to have large sums of public money put into modernisation projects, it is very important that they should be for the nation's good, and that is why I would like to see an extension of public ownership.
As the hon. Member for Langstone said, we seem to be shunted from one place to another and to have to try to departmentalise our thinking, first on one matter and 10 minutes later on something else, and, not being a genius, I find it rather difficult to do that sort of thing. I do not want to keep the House longer than necessary, but I ask my hon. Friend if it is possible to put this question to him, how the Government see the long-term development of our various ports.
I myself was a supporter of our entry into the European Common Market. We in Liverpool are somewhat apprehensive as to the future of our port, which does one-quarter of the country's trade in exports and imports. Many people do not seem to understand this. They think that Liverpool is a sort of very small village somewhere on the north-west coast, but it is by no means a village, but one of the largest ports of this country, and we in Liverpool are very interested in the future of our port.
We were somewhat apprehensive as to where we would stand if we entered the European Economic Community. I still believe that the future of this country is very much orientated towards Europe. I do not uphold the view that our future lies in an amorphous Atlantic free trade area. So we still want to know what the Government's thinking is about ports like Liverpool. Liverpool is in a somewhat different position from ports on the south-east coast, which is a natural in


developing European trade. Therefore, if it is possible for my hon. Friend to give some indication of Government thinking about this we shall be very pleased indeed.
I said that I had no intention of keeping the House any longer than necessary, so I will conclude by welcoming this development. I hope that the application of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board will be dealt with very quickly, and that we can go ahead with the modernisation of the Port of Liverpool—and of all our ports, because if there is one thing which is required it really is modernisation of our ports. We have been left well behind. As the hon. Member for Lang-stone said, if one goes to European ports like Rotterdam one realises how far we have been left behind. If we are to put our country on its feet, modernisation of our ports is absolutely essential, and that is why I welcome this Motion tonight.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) raised a large number of detailed questions and asked for a great deal of detailed information. He will hardly expect, in such a short period, all this detailed information to be available. I have noted his remarks, and I will give him as much information as I reasonably can at a later date.
The hon. Gentleman asked for details of the loans which had been made to date. There have been a number of loans. I could give a general appreciation of the kind of loans that have been given. For instance, a new entrance dock at Leith is costing approximately £6 million, made up of a loan of £5 million and a grant of £1 million.
There is the Tees Conservancy Commissioners capital dredging on the Tees. Land reclamation is a very exciting and interesting idea and the port authority is well aware of the kind of bonus that is obtainable in this way. But this is not something which the Authority is yet ready to undertake. The cost of the dredging was £5¼ million: a loan of £4·2 million and a grant of £1·05 million. I have a complete list here. Perhaps the hon. Member for Langstone would allow me to let him have the information at a later time.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Treasury. The Treasury goes through the schemes after the National Ports Council has recommended them. The Treasury's specific job is to look after public funds, whereas the National Ports Council has to decide whether a scheme fits into plans which it may have. Conserving the public purse is the job of the Treasury. That has to be balanced against many other demands that the public purse is called upon to meet. Therefore, the Treasury does a useful, if at times perhaps irritating, job in guarding public funds.
The repayments of the loans are long term. I explained that the periods range from 15 to 50 years, depending on the nature of the investment. There is usualy a moratorium during the construction period, and it will be some years before the repayments become significant. Repayments to the end of the year will amount only to about £25,000. But we did not expect any more in the short term. The point is that the loans will be repaid in time.
Container schemes are most exciting. I have seen some of the container terminals. It is remarkable how quickly a dockside changes when it is dealing with containers, compared to the hooks, slings and nets we have been used to seeing in the past. Container schemes are being assisted at Tilbury, Seaforth, Liverpool and Greenock.
The Docks Board container berth at Southampton will attract a grant under Section 12, but it will not attract any loan under Section 11.
Concerning the functions of the National Ports Council to which the hon. Member for Langstone referred, it is the responsibility of the National Ports Council to encourage port planning, and it is up to the port authorities to take the initiative in putting up schemes for authorisation. Until schemes are put up the National Ports Council has no right to enter into the ports and make decisions. The Council is waiting for schemes to be submitted by the port authorities. After they have been authorised and applications for loans or grants are sent in, these are examined by the Council and its advice passed on to us to help us to decide whether a grant or a loan should be made, or both.
Some time ago, during an Adjournment debate, I discussed M.I.D.A.S. Large sums of money will be involved, and fundamental decisions will be necessary in respect of many of these schemes. As has been said before in the House, it is more important to get the right answer than to get a quick one. One may feel a little sceptical about that, but there is no doubt that because of what is involved in M.I.D.A.S. we must give the matter every consideration, and it must be examined by all those who are likely to be able to contribute to it. It is being considered with the various bodies concerned, and there is no slacking.
I was asked how long the money would last. I tried to indicate how far we had gone during the last three years. At the rate at which we are going, and if we add this sum to the £50 million which we were originally granted, we expect the money to last for about three years. Anyone who has seen the Liverpool Sea-forth scheme will appreciate what is involved.
Section 11 loans are not made to nationalised ports. In 1967–68 Section 12 grants to nationalised ports amounted to £0·8 million, and the estimate for 1968-69 is about £2 million. Any viable projects which are submitted by small ports are encouraged, and they, too, are eligible for loans and grants.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Cambridge University Report. It is important to realise that this Report was made to the National Ports Council, and not to the House. It is the Council's property, and not the property of the House or the Ministry of Transport. We are not responsible for deciding whether it should be published. The purpose of the Report is to enlighten and help the Council in its work.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I accept that the Council has the right to control any work that it has done, but, having made the Report available to port authorities all over the country, it seems proper to make it available to us when we are considering these large sums of money.

Mr. Carmichael: I shall take the matter up with the Council to find out what it thinks, but at the end of the day it is the Council's job to decide the

matter. I do not think that there ought to be any great difficulty about this. The Report has been widely distributed, but perhaps not as widely as the hon. Gentleman would have liked.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) asked about the Tyne. To date no proposals have been made. The port authorities are responsible for taking the initiative in any project. I saw some of the work being done on the Tyne and I understand the difficulties caused by the reduction of the coal trade over the last 20 years.
Some statements have been made in the House about the aluminium smelter. The development of the associated port facilities has still not been fully considered, but no doubt announcements will be made in good time, and my hon. Friend will keep pressing—

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am grateful for that, but will my hon. Friend assure us that, there will be no automatic bar against these projects? Although, technically, no application has been made, we all know the nature of the projects. The implication is that the Ministry is not willing to consider them in detail, so the full details have not been put to them. Can he give that assurance?

Mr. Carmichael: Certainly. The plans for the construction of the smelters and the associated port facilities are still in an early stage, and it is not possible yet to say to what extent, if at all, port authorities will be involved and eligible for port modernisation or harbour loan grants. But my hon. Friend can assume that there will be no automatic bar on any projects.
I was asked about the provision for large tankers. There is provision at Mil-ford Haven, Finnart, the Thames, the Humber and the Tees. Tilbury and Sea-forth will be able to take grain ships of about 65,000 tons. In fact ships of about 35,000 tons are the largest which the grain trade can foresee using, although their estimates are not universally accepted.
I probably suffer from the same sense of persecution as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) feels over Liverpool when people talk of my city as a small village somewhere to the north of Hatfield. I was


greatly impressed by the sheer spread of the Liverpool docks—and I come from a port area myself. I was impressed by the old docks and even more so by the planning and drawings for the Seaforth Dock.
On my visit, I discussed the welfare of those working in the docks, who, I think, are demanding much better facilities in this respect. I do not know how people put up for so long with the kind of Dickensian structures previously used for welfare purposes. A significant part of the money spent on docks modernisation in the next two or three years, as compared with any proportion spent previously, will go on welfare facilities. This is not just because people are wanting dockers to have better conditions, but also because they are now, rightly, demanding better conditions.
I realise that £50 million is a great deal of money for which to ask. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will realise that the money is spent by people who do a job for the nation and who are engaged in what is probably the most important part of the nation's work. No matter how good and efficient our industry is internally, unless our ports are right, both for exports of manufactured goods and for imports of raw materials and food, the nation will be in great difficulty. Many of the questions which have been asked require more detailed answers than it is possible to give now, but I will make every endeavour to inform hon. Members—

Mr. Heffer: Before my hon. Friend concludes could he answer the point which was raised about the future ownership of the docks? He may not be able to give an answer, but could he give us an assurance that he will convey the points which have been made about public ownership of the docks to his right hon. Friend? Can we have a definite assurance from the Government that there will be no backsliding in the matter of early and efficient public ownership of the docks? This is contained in the Labour Party election manifesto and the dockers and the people generally have been assured that it will be carried out.

Mr. Carmichael: I am aware of this, of course. The debate has been concerned with additional funds for

modernising the docks. I will certainly bring the sentiments which have been expressed by my hon. Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, although I suspect that he is fully aware of the feeling in this matter on this side of the House.
In the meantime, I ask the House to extend the limit on the amount of loans and grants from £50 million to £100 million. I hope that the House will accept the Motion without a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the limit on the aggregate amount of loans and grants together made by the Minister of Transport under sections 11 and 12 of the Harbours Act 1964 as extended by the Docks and Harbours Act 1966 shall be £100,000,000 instead of £50,000,000.

Orders of the Day — DYARRAL BYRNE (COURT PROCEEDINGS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

11.3 p.m.

Dr. Hugh Gray: We have had juvenile courts for 60 years, and I find that many people mistakenly think that all children in trouble are brought before these courts. Unfortunately, this is not so, and tonight I wish to speak of a case which concerns a boy of 13. I should not have spoken of this case without the permission of his mother, and if the case had not been dealt with in the Press. Again, I find that many people mistakenly think that the Press does not print details concerning children, but, of course, this is something which is at the discretion of magistrates which they may or may not care to exercise.
The Press report in this case said:
A youth and a boy, both of Gorleston, were sent for trial at the next Norfolk Quarter Sessions on four theft charges when they appeared at Yarmouth Magistrates' Court on Wednesday.
They were Alan Bardy Smith (19), of 11 Hazel Way, Gorleston, and Dyarral Shaun Michael Patrick Byrne (13), of 39 Pier Plain, Gorleston.
The appearance of this report caused considerable distress to the other members of the boy's family. Of course,


children as well as adults read local newspapers, and the news of Dyarral's trouble soon became known to his friends at school.
The facts of the case are simple. Dyarral had been in previous trouble on several occasions. On 21st March, in the company of this 19-year-old youth, he was arrested. Both were already on bail at the time. The police questioned the boy in the presence of his mother after the arrest and, very sensibly, allowed him to go home for the night. Subsequently, they questioned the youth of 19. As he was on bail, and not a child, he was not released for the night. Next day, both were brought before the magistrates court.
At this point, the question of my hon. Friend's responsibility comes into the picture, because, after the case had been heard, the magistrates decided that the boy should not return to stay with his mother as he had done the previous night, but should be sent to a remand centre. He was sent to a centre some hundreds of miles away, in Somerset. It seems extraordinarily heartless to do that to a boy of 13. Either he should have been allowed to stay at home, or, if the magistrates decided otherwise, he should have been sent to a remand centre near his home. One has to imagine the psychological effect on a child of this age having to appear before a magistrates court.
After a number of days, Dyarral was brought back to the magistrates court and remanded for trial at quarter sessions. I am pleased to say that, on this occasion, my hon. Friend exercised his discretion and sent the boy to a remand centre which was nearer his home—

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): indicated dissent.

Dr. Gray: If that is not so, I have been wrongly informed, and I am doubly distressed if he was again sent some hundreds of miles away.
On 8th April, both appeared at quarter sessions, where they were found guilty, and Dyarral was sent to an approved school.
By an extraordinary coincidence, this case came to light at the same time as the Home Office issued its pamphlet,

"Children in Trouble". As one reads through Dyarral's history, it seems that one is reading about a case which might have happened in the 19th century, long before the juvenile courts were established. It is a perfect illustration of the need for a White Paper of this kind to be published.
Dealing with young offenders aged between 10 and 14, it says that, where proceedings are necessary, perhaps they should be brought under care and protection or control procedures rather than that children should be dragged before adult courts.
I have discussed his case with a number of my hon. Friends who are members of the legal profession, and they have told me that they know of many other cases and that the only reason why the subject has not been raised before on the Adjournment is that very properly no publicity had been given to them. I hope that my hon. Friend's reply will not only take account of the characteristics of Dyarral's case, but the general situation it illustrates, which is a scar on our civilisation and one which should be removed very quickly. It is disgraceful that a boy of 13 should be subjected to this kind of procedure and brought before adult courts.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): The case which my hon. Friend has raised this evening brings to the attention of the House an important subject—the way in which we deal with children who break the law.
It is a subject which, as the House knows, the Home Office has been considering recently, and it is useful to have brought to our attention a particular case which highlights some of the difficulties and the complexities of this question.
The facts as reported to me are as follows. On 13th March this year, Dyarral Byrne, who is 13 years old, was charged with housebreaking and larceny. The offences were alleged to have been committed jointly with a youth of 19. In the ordinary way a boy of this age would appear before a juvenile court, which has power to try any offence, except homicide, committed by a child. But there are difficulties about bringing a boy before a juvenile court where he is jointly charged with a person over 17.
It would be undesirable to try an adult in the juvenile court, and in any case there would be complications where the offence was one which could not be tried in a magistrates' court in the case of the older person, or where he had a right to elect trial by jury. Separate trials, one in the juvenile court and the other in the adult court, would present difficulties where the charges are based on substantially the same facts. The law provides that where a juvenile and a person over 17 are jointly charged the case must be brought before the adult magistrates' court.
Under the law as it stands, the police have no discretion in this matter, and Dyarral and the other accused were brought before the Great Yarmouth magistrates' court on 13th March.
As I have said, one of the charges in this case was housebreaking, which is not an offence for which a magistrates' court may try a person who is over 17. It was, therefore, necessary for the magistrates to commit the older defendant for trial. Again, because of the difficulty of separate trials, the law enables the court to commit both defendants for trial if it thinks it is necessary in the interests of justice.
In this case, the court committed both accused for trial at Norfolk Quarter Sessions and granted them bail. The court in this case was acting under the provisions of Section 21 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, sub-section (1) of which says
Where a person under fourteen years old appears or is brought before a magistrates' court on an information charging him with an indictable offence other than homicide, he shall be tried summarily:
Provided that, if a person under fourteen is charged jointly with a person who has attained that age, the court may, if it considers it necessary in the interests of justice, commit them both for trial.
The position is that although it was necessary for this case in the circumstances to be brought before the adult court, there was a discretion vested in the magistrates' court as to whether or not it should commit both of them for trial. There was, of course, no discretion so far as the older defendant was concerned.
Following that hearing, at 9.45 p.m. on 21st March, Dyarral and the same youth were arrested on a fresh charge of

housebreaking committed on that day and were taken to Gorleston police station. This was a further offence of housebreaking committed when they were both already on bail to appear at Norfolk Quarter Sessions. Mrs. Byrne was sent for and went to the police station. She asked that her son be allowed to return home and Dyarral was released on bail and went home with his mother.
Because the accused were already on bail in connection with another charge, the police refused to release the older youth on bail. This meant that he had to appear before a magistrates' court the next morning. The police then realised that since Dyarral was jointly charged with him, he would have to appear at the same time. A police officer was sent to Dyarral's home the next morning to explain the position to Mrs. Byrne, and she and her son were taken by police car to the court. The court remanded both the accused until 29th March and refused bail because the alleged offences were committed when the accused were already on bail. There was no vacancy in the remand home at Bramerton Lodge, near Norwich, and Dyarral was taken to a remand home in Somerset, which was the nearest remand home with a vacancy.
I do not pretend that this is a position which one can accept with complacency. I have investigated the matter and I understand that before being sent to the remand home in Somerset wide, exhaustive and assiduous inquiries were made concerning vacancies in many other remand homes nearer to Norfolk, but without success. I understand that the question of his being sent to Somerset was announced by the court when it remanded Dyarral, and that Mrs. Byrne was present.
On 29th March both were again committed for trial at Norfolk Quarter Sessions. The reasons for Dyarral's appearance before the ordinary magistrates' court and for his committal to the Sessions for trial were the same as on the previous charge. There was by now a vacancy in the remand home at Bramerton Lodge and Dyarral was sent there. At the trial on 8th April both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge of house breaking but guilty to the other charges, and this was accepted


by the prosecution. Dyarral was sent to an approved school and the older youth to Borstal.
As my hon. Friend said, a further result of Dyarral's appearance before the adult court was that the newspapers were free to publish his name, which they could not have done if he had appeared before the juvenile court because there is an absolute prohibition in that respect. The law gives the adult court power, under Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, to direct that the names of juveniles who appear before it shall not be published. Although this matter was raised at the court, the court did not see fit to give any direction in this case. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, neither I nor anyone else in the House can properly comment on that decision.
I sympathise with the view that a boy of 13 should not be arraigned before a jury at quarter sessions and liable to have his name published in the newspapers

simply because he is alleged to have committed an offence in company with an older person. If my hon. Friend refers to the White Paper "Children in Trouble", published recently by the Home Secretary, he will find proposals under which a child of 14 would not be brought before an adult court in any circumstances. The White Paper also contains proposals under which a wider variety of accommodation would become available for children on remand, and so avoid the need for long journeys when a local remand home is full. Since legislation would be required before these proposals could take effect, it would not be in order for me to go into them in greater detail now.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this question and I give him the fullest assurance that what he has said will be fully borne in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.